Is McDonalds making a big mistake with ads that respond to the "Super Size Me" movie?

[astro]

Re the ad campaign started in McDonalds Australia to respond to this film. I have not seen the movie "Super Size Me", but I have read enough reviews of it to get the flavor. IMO if McDonalds had just kept their mouth shut people would have forgotten about it in a few months. Now they're jump starting the debate all over again. It's a film makers prayer come true. Now I've gotta see the movie.

Having said this, am I wrong? Is the movie that powerful that it needed to be countered with an ad campaign?

Aussie McDonald's hits 'Super Size Me' - Chain bites back with ad campaign against hit movie (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/18/film.mcdonalds.reut/index.html/)

[Abbie Carmichael]

I agree.

Their reaction is kind of like the tobacco lobby going "Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Nope, nope, nope, no cancer, here's a bunch of studies we funded that prove it. But even if it DID, if you smoke it's your own fault if you get sick."

What I want to know from McDonald's is, if even their upper management people know that eating McD's every day is unhealthy, what steps are they taking to tell the public how many times a week eating there IS healthy?

The guy in the article said he eats 3 times. So is 3 times healthy? Can we get away with 4 or 5? If 21 times a week is unhealthy, where's the cutoff?

[mhendo]

Yeah, you've really gotta wonder if these people learned anything from the McLibel trial.

Plenty of people know how crappy the food is at McDonalds, and they still choose to eat there because they like the taste or the convenience. Those people look at things like the movie "Super Size Me" and have a bit of a laugh, because they know that eating nothing but McDonald's food for a month is silly.

Similarly, regarding the McLibel trial, plenty of people know that McDonalds hiring and labor practices, and environmental practices, are seriously questionable. Yet those people often still choose to eat there.

Where McDonalds fucks up is in trying to counter these things with propaganda of its own, because the companyjust ends up looking silly at best, and like a bunch of baldfaced liars at worst. They would be better off ignoring it and letting it sink into the obscurity that is the long-term fate of even the best documentaries.

[Revtim]

What I want to know from McDonald's is, if even their upper management people know that eating McD's every day is unhealthy, what steps are they taking to tell the public how many times a week eating there IS healthy?

The guy in the article said he eats 3 times. So is 3 times healthy? Can we get away with 4 or 5? If 21 times a week is unhealthy, where's the cutoff?I don't feel it's McD's or any other food provider's responsibility to tell the consumer how often one could eat their food in a healthy manner. They provide nutritional information, at the website at least, and I suppose in the restaurants too (although I haven't been to one in a while, so maybe I'm wrong). That's enough for the consumer to make their own decision.

And even if they didn't provide such information, we all know it's fried beef patties. They're not saying it's something else. People can generally find out for themselves, if they don't know already, that fried beef isn't a health food

[Abbie Carmichael]

People can generally find out for themselves, if they don't know already, that fried beef isn't a health food




It can be, provided you don't dump a half cup of ketchup on it and smash it in between two huge pieces of bread, but that's another thread ...

[Snooooopy]

I think McDonald's has to say something so that the anti-McDonald's forces can't say, "This movie came out, and the chain had NOTHING to say!" But, keeping in mind the free publicity that this gives the movie, I wouldn't go OVERBOARD with a response.

[Ferret Herder]

That's where you issue a low-key announcement saying they disagree with how they were presented in the movie and how he went way overboard, etc., post it on their website in their media section, and tada, they've responded.

[LordVor]

Well, in America at least, McDonald's responded by getting rid of the "Supersize" option, putting small and medium-sized french fries back on the menu, and nearly completely revamping and refocused their menu by offering more things like decent salads and healthier chicken sandwiches, apple slices in happy meals, etc. And, in turn, completely turning around their lagging sales...profits are up, revenue is up, and IMHO they owe a great deal of it to this movie.

-lv

[bsane]

I haven't seen the documentary, but I saw the makers interview on the John Stewart show, and he reeked of BS. I don't doubt he actually ate McDs for a month, but he started with the intention of gaining weight during the month and he succeeded. I could gain weight by eating anything in excess....

[Duderdude2]

I haven't seen the documentary, but I saw the makers interview on the John Stewart show, and he reeked of BS. I don't doubt he actually ate McDs for a month, but he started with the intention of gaining weight during the month and he succeeded. I could gain weight by eating anything in excess....

I haven't seen the movie, so perhaps I shouldn't be one to speak. Regardless, I wondered how, or even if, this guy's claims were validated. 1.5 hours for a movie allows a lot room for creative editing.

[astro]

I haven't seen the documentary, but I saw the makers interview on the John Stewart show, and he reeked of BS. I don't doubt he actually ate McDs for a month, but he started with the intention of gaining weight during the month and he succeeded. I could gain weight by eating anything in excess....

I haven't seen the movie but, based on the reviews I have read, I think the issue the film tackles is McDonald's spending billions to represent itself to the public as a breakfast, lunch and dinner place, where you can get three squares a day. It's selling itself as a provider of wholesome meals.

The guy essentially passively takes McDonald's at it's word and eats a standard breakfast, lunch and dinner McDonalds "meal", and passively agrees everytime the McDonald's clerk suggests "supersizing" his meal. He's essentially the dream customer, delivering himself into the hands of McDonalds, and living the McDonalds culinary life, which McDonald's suggests it can provide in a wholesome manner. And in doing so he becomes a bloated, unhealthy sack of suet.

Now, McDonalds comes along and says "No, no, no... you've got to be proactive about your own health, don't you have enough sense not to do what we urge you to do (ie "supersize").

In this film McDonalds is forced to confront the latent hypocrisy in acknowledging the common sense health limits of consuming a typical McDonalds calorie dense, high fat, high sugar, low fiber fast food diet, and it's advertising representations that it is providing "healthy" meals instead of fast, hot calorie bombs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I saw the movie today. It does make a pretty powerful statement about the toxicity of junk food.

He did a lot more than gain weight, BTW. He also poisoned his liver, got intense heaches, heart palpitations, chest pains and a plethora of other problems.

Interestingly, a lot of the problems seemed to come more from the pop and the french fries than from the burgers. The movie showed a guy who had been eating big macs every day, twice a day for years and was quite skinny. The movie also said that he never ate the fries.

There is quite a bit of valuable information in the movie. It isn't just a stunt. McDonalds food is Satan. It's no use defending it. The movie also made some good points about obesity in children and how so much of the food marketed to children is completely toxic and murderous.

It is stupid for McDonalds to draw ay more attention to this movie.

[Eliahna]

I haven't seen much of the response by McD's, but what I did see amounted to "Eating only our burgers and fries for a month makes you fat and sick? Duh!."

McDonalds have never promoted their foods as a complete and nutrious diet in my recollection, which prompts me to ask: What exactly is the point of Supersize Me? I would say that everyone knows or should know that a varied diet is important to good health. Anyone trying to survive on fried beef, pickles, tomato sauce, bread, fried potato and possibly icecream is going to get sick. McDonald's target customer base is people who need something to eat in a hurry and fairly cheap, not people after a solution for three meals a day.

I should note that I haven't seen Supersize Me, so I don't know if there's a more significant point being made.

[Silentgoldfish]

I get the feeling that McDonalds Australia is run a bit differently to the American version, which is why they can refute a some of the claims made in the movie. For instance no one at the McDonald's near me has ever asked if I want to supersize anything.

[bsane]

The guy essentially passively takes McDonald's at it's word and eats a standard breakfast, lunch and dinner McDonalds "meal", and passively agrees everytime the McDonald's clerk suggests "supersizing" his meal.

The guy also ate a lot of desserts and various other things, at least thats he let slip on TDS.

He did a lot more than gain weight, BTW. He also poisoned his liver, got intense heaches, heart palpitations, chest pains and a plethora of other problems.

This was where my BS meter really went off during the interview. Headaches and chestpains (aka heartburn) could be caused by any radical change in diet. The rest of it just did not sound belivable. Maybe if he had an EKG prior to starting and another 4 weeks in I would buy the rest of the stuff, but he was trying to convince you that he barely escaped with his life after 4 weeks- give me a break.

[Aeschines]

I finally get to say this to ya:

The plural of anecdote is NOT data!

;)

[astro]

I finally get to say this to ya:

The plural of anecdote is NOT data!

;)


I think DTC's point is buttressed by a little more than "anecdote". It is hardly nutritional rocket science to assert that McDonald's food is not good for you if it comprises a substantive part of your diet. Here is McD's site (http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html). Go to the nutritional calculator and do the math. Sum the calories, fat, sodium etc., in the meal combos it offers on it's menus, and the notion that these meals are anything but hyper rich gut bombs is difficult to sustain.

It's not "anecdote", it's an empirically verfiable observation that this stuff is not good for you if made a regular and consistent part of your diet. And, lets not dance around the issue here re "You don't have to eat these meals, you can pick and choose". Objectively this is true, but in day to day operations these "meals" are what McDonalds focuses their advertising on selling. They, with their super high profit drink and fry components, are the profit core of the enterprise. McDonalds actually loses a tiny amount money if you went in and just ordered a plain hamburger.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Maybe if he had an EKG prior to starting and another 4 weeks in I would buy the rest of the stuff, but he was trying to convince you that he barely escaped with his life after 4 weeks- give me a break.
He DID have an EKG prior to starting. Did you watch the movie? There's no deception or BS in it.

[don't ask]

Interestingly enough in the Sydney paper last week a journalist wrote a piece about the movie and the ads. She said she thought it would be better if she tried eating Macca's 3 meals a day for a week. She lost one kilogram (2.2 pounds) in the week and put it down to the fact that she normally doesn't eat breakfast but did while eating Macca's.

[don't ask]

If you check the Oz McDonalds site (http://www.mcdonalds.com.au/home/structure.asp?ID=) you willse that the reason they did it here, is because many of the things stated in the movie aren't true here.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

This was where my BS meter really went off during the interview. Headaches and chestpains (aka heartburn) could be caused by any radical change in diet. The rest of it just did not sound belivable. Maybe if he had an EKG prior to starting and another 4 weeks in I would buy the rest of the stuff, but he was trying to convince you that he barely escaped with his life after 4 weeks- give me a break.

Which one of the four complete medical checks did you not believe before he emabrked on the eat-athon? Which doctor did you disbelieve whilst he was putting on the pounds? Which of the four doctors was lying about the results after he had finished? There was a little bit more than just a single EKG.

[bsane]

He DID have an EKG prior to starting. Did you watch the movie? There's no deception or BS in it.

I stated ealier that I was basing my opion on his interview.

So what did the four doctors that Tapioca Dextrin said examined him pre and post have to say? Was he near death?

If there was really good data taken on this guy then maybe the documentary is worth watching, but I would have never of guessed that from his interview.

[Aeschines]

He DID have an EKG prior to starting. Did you watch the movie? There's no deception or BS in it.

You have GOT to be chain-yanking! Any evidence anyone has every give to you about ghosts, NDEs, or anything that doesn't suit your worldview has been subject to ridicule and excoriation on your part: it's all fraud, fantasy, and BS.

This jackass sets out to make a movie for f*%@'s sake with a predetermined goal: get fat and get Mc.

And you say, "But he had an EKG." So much for skepticism!

[Duderdude2]

I have to agree, this guy clearly had an agenda. I doubt he was willing to invest his time and money into a project of which he did not know the outcome. That doesn't necessarily mean he's lying, but it's naive to take his "documentary" at face value.

[Raygun99]

If the movie's sole point was "eating McDonalds food for a month for all 3 meals will make you fat", it would be a rather uninteresting movie. That's just the hook, like how thrillers stick in a serial killer or a kidnapper or something similar. McDonalds is just a convenient whipping boy because of their #1 status but what the movie is really about is our society's abandonment of common sense as regards to diet -- it takes to task fad diets (with a scene involving a girl who quite sadly misunderstands the point of the "Subway" diet), quickie food options and in probably its best hitting segment, school cafeterias and how they've been 'bought out' by large corporations who provide fast food meals with huge profits for themselves when there are cheaper and healthier options available. It probably overstates its case in some places but there's a classic scene with a school administrator who is proud of the fact that her school doesn't serve soda but is left to mutter, "you'll have to speak to the company" when it's pointed out that the canned lemonade they do serve contains more sugar than Pepsi. And yeah, there's the Big Mac guy, who is thin as a rail.

I think this is a case of people reviewing a movie based on its hype rather than it's content. It's got more to say than "McDonalds is bad" and its final point is to say, "you there in the audience, demand better food". As far as some of the medical issues go, I suppose it wouldn't be that hard to say, "oh, I'm having chest pains" but it's pretty hard to fake high cholesterol and liver enzymes.

[Aeschines]

As far as some of the medical issues go, I suppose it wouldn't be that hard to say, "oh, I'm having chest pains" but it's pretty hard to fake high cholesterol and liver enzymes.

Peanuts and strawberries cause adverse reactions in some people, but that doesn't mean they're bad foods. Some people get cirrosis of the liver without ever having had a drink.

If you want to establish that something special or different about McD's food is causing these problems, then you will have to do medical experiments on a large number of people.

Otherwise, it could just be this fool's overeating or behaviors off-camera that we don't even see (is he drinking? taking drugs?--stranger things have happened) that are causing the extreme reactions. Or it could just be fakery, fraud, and BS.

If, however, you wish to assert that eating tons of fat and 5000 calories a day is bad for you, then this movie was wholly unnecessary. It is.

[Raygun99]

Well here's you're problem; you're treating it as a scientific essay. It's not. Let me repeat this for you, in big letters: The point of Super Size Me is not "eating McDonalds food for a month will make you fat".

Peanuts and strawberries cause adverse reactions in some people, but that doesn't mean they're bad foods. Some people get cirrosis of the liver without ever having had a drink.

And that's got what to do with what? He doesn't claim that McDonalds food is the only reason people are fat, nor that it will automatically make you so.


If you want to establish that something special or different about McD's food is causing these problems, then you will have to do medical experiments on a large number of people.

Otherwise, it could just be this fool's overeating or behaviors off-camera that we don't even see (is he drinking? taking drugs?--stranger things have happened) that are causing the extreme reactions. Or it could just be fakery, fraud, and BS.


That would have made filming a documentary pretty difficult, don't you think? And also would have been picked up by the numerous physicals he had during the course of the filming, I should think.


If, however, you wish to assert that eating tons of fat and 5000 calories a day is bad for you, then this movie was wholly unnecessary. It is.

Luckily, not his point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It sems that people who haven't seen the movie have a totally distorted view of what it's motive is. The point of the film is not "McDonalds is bad," it's just about American eating habits in genearal and how that relates to obesity, bad health and even how if affects the performance of kids in school. The McDonalds stunt is just done as an illustration of how bad junk food is and what it does to your body over a long period of time.

The responsibility for eating choices is placed on the audience, not on McDonalds.

SAeschines, if you watch the film, I'll think you'll see that there isn't any deception or distortion going on. If you want to call the guy a liar offer some proof. And this may come as a shock to you but believeing that a solid diet of McDonalds will adversely affaect your health is not in the same ballpark as believing in ridiculous stories about ghosts and goblins.

[Incubus]

I always find discussions about this film humorous because frankly I've doing what this guy has been doing only instead of a month its probably been 2+ years now that I've lived off McDonald's and other fast food franchises. In that time my weight has actually DROPPED from 190 lbs in high school to currently 170 (I'm 6'2") and my Cholesterol hasn't really changed much either.

[Raygun99]

It sems that people who haven't seen the movie have a totally distorted view of what it's motive is. The point of the film is not "McDonalds is bad," it's just about American eating habits in genearal and how that relates to obesity, bad health and even how if affects the performance of kids in school. The McDonalds stunt is just done as an illustration of how bad junk food is and what it does to your body over a long period of time.

Did you find yourself wondering about the financial aspect of the film, i.e. the amount of money he spent on food during this time? even though McDonalds is a pretty cheap fast food place, it's still going to add up over the course of a month. I half expected a tally of his food bill at the end of the film.

[fluiddruid]

I have to say, as an overweight person, this movie kicked me in the ass a bit. As has been said, the bombshell is not supposed to be that McDonalds 3 times a day makes you fat -- it's how toxic we've allowed so much of our food supply to become, and how we could change, but yet, don't.

The movie talks a great deal about how food affects us physically, and how fast food or convenience food is put together in a way to affect us and make us feel happy. It's a drug effect. I am, effectively, a junkie.

For me, that was a helpful analogy. I thought about it. I do eat certain foods not just to nourish, but to feel a certain way.

My issue is that I really don't like junk food or fast food. I've just fallen into bad habits and I really don't even like what I eat. I feel like an addict. Thus, I'm trying to change my ways. I'm trying to really think about what I'm doing. I'm trying to determine if there are particular foods that cause cravings or feelings that make me eat when I'm not hungry.

I saw the movie about a week ago. It was a wake up call. I'm quite overweight and I get down on eating better because I always feel like I have such a long way to go. But, seeing him do so much negative in one month, I thought to myself, I'm only making things worse every day I don't change. If I turn things around, think of what good a better diet could do for how I feel and how my health is ... even in a month.

So, I'm giving myself a month to see if I can eat healthy. I created my own 'rules'.

I will not buy any fast food.
I will not buy any food from convenience stores or gas stations.
I will not buy food from vending machines.
I will avoid going into my work cafeteria (due to the grease-laden offerings) and, if I do enter, will not get anything that requires me to ask (all of the grease-laden offerings).
I will eat vegetables every day.
I will always have vegetables and fruit available for me to eat.
I will not eat a lot of diet or 'low-fat' foods... I will focus on basic foods like vegetables and fruit, and smaller portions of other things.
I will avoid processed foods whenever possible.
I will continue to drink more water each day until I get up to 8 glasses per day.
I will exercise every day and mostly with things I like to do (bought Dance Dance Revolution for this one).

I'm not really trying to out-and-out diet, but just see the effect of avoiding the absolute crap especially during the busy workweek. We'll see... but I hope it'll start me on some good habits.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Did you find yourself wondering about the financial aspect of the film, i.e. the amount of money he spent on food during this time? even though McDonalds is a pretty cheap fast food place, it's still going to add up over the course of a month. I half expected a tally of his food bill at the end of the film.
I did wonder about that a bit but when you do a little back-of-the-envelope arithmetic it's not that bad. I figure an average meal is five or six dollars so, conservatively speaking, 20 dollars a day is probably a ballpark fpr what he would spend. 20 dollars times 30 days equals about 600 dollars for the entire experiment. Still more than what you would spend on groceries but not really a sifnificant amount of change in the context of movie making. Even if he spent ten bucks per meal it would still add up to less than a thousand dollars total. I don't know what his budget for the film was but I'm sure a thousand bucks is a drop in the bucket (this is all assuming he could charge all the Mickey D's food to the movie budget, of course).

The taxis would add up, though.

[Askance]

So, I'm giving myself a month to see if I can eat healthy. I created my own 'rules'

Well good on you for drawing a good lesson from the movie, rather than reacting like the other attack-the-messenger posts in this thread. You totally win my respect for this move and I'd love to hear how you go on this. Well done.


BTW a couple of points about your rules: you didn't mention soda/soft drink/pop/coke/whatever they call it in your area, but I'd advise staying away from that too, whether full sugar or lo-cal.

And the 8 glasses of water a day recommendation includes water you consume in other ways (ie in food, coffee, etc). Don't try to choke down 8 actual glasses of water on top of your normal consumption, unless you actually feel that thirsty.


Good luck!

[Aeschines]

It sems that people who haven't seen the movie have a totally distorted view of what it's motive is. The point of the film is not "McDonalds is bad," it's just about American eating habits in genearal and how that relates to obesity, bad health and even how if affects the performance of kids in school. The McDonalds stunt is just done as an illustration of how bad junk food is and what it does to your body over a long period of time.
OK, and I say: Who cares? Sure, junk food is bad for you. Does the movie have anything more original to say than that?

The movie does say "McDonald's is bad." Is his rigged diet portrayed as greatly helping him to be healthier? No. You're the one mentioning heart and liver problems and saying that McDonald's is Satan. How much sophistry can one thread handle?

SAeschines, if you watch the film, I'll think you'll see that there isn't any deception or distortion going on.
And I don't see any "deception" or "distortion" coming from my paranormal researcher friends. You gonna believe them?

If you want to call the guy a liar offer some proof.
Bullsh*t. "He who posits must prove." You should know that, calling yourself a skeptic.

And if you say that Spurlock offered "proof," I'll refer you to my post above demanding genuine medical experiments and not rigged/anecdotal "evidence."

And this may come as a shock to you but believeing that a solid diet of McDonalds will adversely affaect your health is not in the same ballpark as believing in ridiculous stories about ghosts and goblins.
You've got skepticism ass-backwards, I fear. It's not about delineating a general domain of what's believable, but about applying the proper criteria of proof to each and every claim.

Your arguments in this thread are a disgrace to skepticism. Admit it and we'll move on.

[partlycloudy]

Oooohh... I really want a Big Mac now. :smack:

(no, really)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

OK, and I say: Who cares? Sure, junk food is bad for you. Does the movie have anything more original to say than that?
Plenty.
The movie does say "McDonald's is bad." Is his rigged diet portrayed as greatly helping him to be healthier? No. You're the one mentioning heart and liver problems and saying that McDonald's is Satan. How much sophistry can one thread handle?
How is that sophist?
And I don't see any "deception" or "distortion" coming from my paranormal researcher friends. You gonna believe them?
You really don't want to go down this path, do you? There is no such thing as the "paranormal." There is nothing there to "research." Your fantasies about ghosts and vampires are on a completely different order of plausibility than what can be known about the effects of a high fat, high sugar diet on the human body. The latter can actually be tested and evalutaed empirically. Your werwolf stories cannot,
Bullsh*t. "He who posits must prove." You should know that, calling yourself a skeptic.

And if you say that Spurlock offered "proof," I'll refer you to my post above demanding genuine medical experiments and not rigged/anecdotal "evidence."
There is nothing "rigged" about what Serlock does and during the course of this experiment he is being monitored by multiple doctors and a battery of tests at regular intervals throughout. Medical data is collected constantly from start to finish. Before he started the doctors didn't think the consequences would be that severe, by the end of the month they're begging him to quit because they're afraid he's going to get liver failure. One doctor says that what he's doing to his liver is akin to drinking himself to death.

Serlock never tries to draw any greater conclusions about what happens to him other that "this is what happened to me. The doctors are not so circumspect.
You've got skepticism ass-backwards, I fear. It's not about delineating a general domain of what's believable, but about applying the proper criteria of proof to each and every claim.
And proof {i]is[/i] offered for each and every claim.
Your arguments in this thread are a disgrace to skepticism. Admit it and we'll move on.
What should I be skeptical about? Serlock backs up everything in the movie with ample medical evidence. I find it far more implausible that he would engage a bunch of reputable doctors to lie on camera or that he would scretly find some way to poison his liver other than his diet (and in a manner that would be indistishable to multiple medical specialists from what would happen just from his diet) and what the hell could he do to himself that would be worse than the McDonalds food anyway?

I don't even know what your point is. You don't believe that junk food is really bad for you? That doesn't surprise me. You have demonstrated a very casual attitude towards empirical reality on this board.

[Unregistered Bull]

I always find discussions about this film humorous because frankly I've doing what this guy has been doing only instead of a month its probably been 2+ years now that I've lived off McDonald's and other fast food franchises. In that time my weight has actually DROPPED from 190 lbs in high school to currently 170 (I'm 6'2") and my Cholesterol hasn't really changed much either.

John Stossell (sp?) did a show on this. 2 other people did the same. One lost weight eating normally at McDonalds and exercising 60 minutes a week. And another, an 1.5 hour a day exerciser, did eat the 5,000 calorie a day diet that the propaganda maker did with no detriments to his health. Jesus Christ, if I pigged out at every meal and ate the most fattening things that I could cook or buy and didn't exercise, then my health, or at least my weight, would go to pot too. Not much of a documentary.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

John Stossell (sp?) did a show on this. 2 other people did the same. One lost weight eating normally at McDonalds and exercising 60 minutes a week. And another, an 1.5 hour a day exerciser, did eat the 5,000 calorie a day diet that the propaganda maker did with no detriments to his health. Jesus Christ, if I pigged out at every meal and ate the most fattening things that I could cook or buy and didn't exercise, then my health, or at least my weight, would go to pot too. Not much of a documentary.
A.) John Stossel is a tool (not really relevant but I thought I'd just point that out).

B) It was a part of Serlock's experiment that he would not excercise more than the average American. He carried a pedometer to make sure that he would not walk any more than average. Lack of exercise was part of the point.

What serlock was doing was showing what would happen if a person ate at McDonalds in the way that McDonalds wanted them to- at every meal and ordering the Supersize portions when suggested.

McD's had not previously ever warned anyone that a regular diet was dangerous or made any attempt to discourage it as a regular diet.

Once again. If you have not seen the movie then don't make assumptions.

C.) John Stossel is a tool (it bears repeating).

[bsane]

McD's had not previously ever warned anyone that a regular diet was dangerous or made any attempt to discourage it as a regular diet.


This idea has been thrown around a few times in this thread. MOST (all?) companies do not go out of their way to warn that excess usage of their product will cause problems, when in fact a vast majority of products will cause problems when used in excess.

Is it Budwisers fault that people drink a twelve pack every day? Would warning people that excess consumption is bad make a difference to anyone?

Is it your grocery stores fault that buy and eat too many potatoes (or red meat, or whatever your against). Should they have warnings telling you not to buy or eat in excess?

[bsane]

Oh and I forgot to say:

John Stossell is a tool.... ;)

[Winnie]

I saw the movie about a week ago. It was a wake up call. I'm quite overweight and I get down on eating better because I always feel like I have such a long way to go. But, seeing him do so much negative in one month, I thought to myself, I'm only making things worse every day I don't change. If I turn things around, think of what good a better diet could do for how I feel and how my health is ... even in a month.

fluiddruid, your motivation is inspiring, and I wish you the best of luck. I saw the movie this weekend with my husband and we had similar wake-up calls. While neither of us are technically "overweight", we certainly have our weeks when the gym doesn't see either of our faces, we eat more nights than at home, and lunches have been quickly eaten at McD's or Booger King. After Super Size Me, I literally felt wretched, and wished that every molecule of fat and poison in my body that has been the result of fast food or overprocessed food would dissolve instantly. We've both said on our own terms that we won't be frequenting fast food places on any regular basis and would be doing our best to create "whole foods" meals at home, without too many canned/processed things on our daily menus. With any plan, moderation is the key, so we won't beat ourselves up if we give in to a cheeseburger and fries craving or two every now and then.

I think what affected me the most about the movie is the impact of the junk food industries on kids. The cafeteria scenes were scary, with kids bringing a few bags of chips, a candy bar, and a coke for lunch, and the school personnel standing in the background claiming they weren't doing any harm selling those items because kids would NEVER just buy chips and candy for their lunch.

The early age at which kids are exposed to junk and processed food is astounding and has made me pledge that my soon to be born child will not become a "McDonalds" kid. One of these kids that won't eat anything but chicken nuggets/happy meals, and is eating fast food before they can even walk. My 4-year old nephew is one of these kids, refuses to eat anything at family gatherings (his mom brings his food separately because "there's never anything for him to eat at these things" while the tables are literally GROANING from the weight of all the food on them), is completely addicted to video games, and can never go out anywhere without a container of chicken mcnuggets and kraft macaroni and cheese in his little travel bag in case they end up somewhere where there's nothing for him to eat. He's also extremely hyperactive and at age 4 is using the kind of language that would have gotten me pummeled at age 13.

[Lute Skywatcher]

DtC, did you know Spurlock is refusing to be interviewed side-by-side with Soso Whaley? Interviewers can get him or her but not both. That says to me something isn't quite kosher with SuperSize Me.

[Severian]

It is due to this thread alone that I ate at McDonald's today.

[World Eater]

Just wanted to wish Fluiddruid good luck.

Btw I just realized your name rhymed. :smack:

[DocCathode]

What serlock was doing was showing what would happen if a person ate at McDonalds in the way that McDonalds wanted them to- at every meal and ordering the Supersize portions when suggested.

Why do you think that McDonalds wants people to eat every meal there? I watch a lot of television- a lot of television. So I see a lot of ads. None of the ads I've seen portray McDonalds as a place to eat all your meals all the time. Many do offer McDonalds as an alternative to breakfast for the rushing commuter. Many of the ads for lunch and dinner portray McDonalds as a special treat to be eaten only occasionally. Many feature parents taking their kids as some sort of reward.

Yes, McDonalds wants profits. I agree with you that they prefer you to supersize. But I've seen no evidence that they want consumers to eat all their meals there. To me, that's like saying Ford wants you to buy luxury models with all the options even if you have to sell your house and all your worldly possessions to do it.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Anyone who’s seen this movie will realize that Spurlock’s guns are not leveled only at McDonald’s. He looks at other fast food chains, school cafeterias and grocers as well. He doesn’t blame McDonald’s as being solely responsible for the surge in obesity today. He doesn’t blame McDonald’s for the sedentary lifestyles people lead. The movie is about the entire toxic environment we live in, of which McDonald’s is but a part.

He chose McDonald’s as the subject of his stunt because they are by far the largest fast food chain and because their lawyers claimed in court that there was no evidence that eating their food on a regular basis was harmful.

To all those who spitefully eat more McDonald’s because of this movie all I can say is go for it. It’s no skin off my nose. Do you think Spurlock cares?

To fluiddruid, I wish you well. Why just one month? It sounds like you’re ready to make a lifestyle change to me. Just don’t starve yourself.

[Wesley Clark]

Did they say eating too often at McDonalds was unhealthy or that eating too many calories in high fat foods was unhealthy? I can't find the article right now but I remember reading about a woman who decided to test Spurlock's theory. Instead of eating 5000 kcal in big macs she ate near maintenance level calories in things like salads, parfaits, chicken nuggets, etc. She had no weight problems as a result, i don't know if her cholesterol levels changed though.

[Lute Skywatcher]

I can't find the article right now but I remember reading about a woman who decided to test Spurlock's theory. Instead of eating 5000 kcal in big macs she ate near maintenance level calories in things like salads, parfaits, chicken nuggets, etc. She had no weight problems as a result, i don't know if her cholesterol levels changed though.Soso Whaley (http://www.cei.org/pages/debunk/debunk_the_junk.cfm)? I mentioned her a bit earlier, in regards to Morgan Spurlock not wanting her around to critique his claims.

[Unregistered Bull]

A.) John Stossel is a tool.

How so? Even so, how is this propagandist not a tool also? Or for that matter, how can any opinion based 'journalists' not be tool?

[pizzabrat]

But I've seen no evidence that they want consumers to eat all their meals there. To me, that's like saying Ford wants you to buy luxury models with all the options even if you have to sell your house and all your worldly possessions to do it.

A better parallel would be if Ford advertised their luxury cars as acceptable replacements for homes, since McDonald's advertises their shoddy junk as an acceptable replacement for a real meal.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Soso Whaley (http://www.cei.org/pages/debunk/debunk_the_junk.cfm)? I mentioned her a bit earlier, in regards to Morgan Spurlock not wanting her around to critique his claims.
I don't know what you're suggesting Spurlock is being dishonest about or why you assume that Whaely is not dishonest but in any case she did not duplicate Spurlock's experiment (which included eating everything on the menu at least once and accpepting the supersize whenever they asked).

What do you think is "not Kosher" about Spurlock's film and what is your evidence?

Is everyone else involved with film, including the doctors, just lying? Why? And what is your evidence?

Have you seen the movie? You don't really seem to have a grasp of what it's about. Those of us who have seen keep trying to tell those who haven't that it's not about attacking McDonalds but nobody seems to be listening. It's about what bad eating habits do to your body. McDonalds is just a symbol.

Why don't you actually see the film before you spout your uninformed opinions?

[DocCathode]

Machetero I'm assuming you're not joking. As your location is not listed, it's possible the term isn't used where you live. Diogenes as far as I can tell meant tool in the sense of 'wanker' 'jerk' 'arse'.

Pizzabrat
But it is a replacement for a meal. As long as you don't do it too often.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

One of the overriding points of the movie is that Americans are becoming more and more reliant on processed food and eating out instead of cooking for themselves. He's trying to show that such a reliance is unhealthy and that people don't realize how unhealthy it is. Not only that but much of it is actually chemically engineered to produce a drug reaction in the brain and a corresponding addiction.

The film also shows how children are systematically targeted as consumers for products which are not only bad for them but addictive.

[Czarcasm]

Moving this to Cafe Society.

[Lute Skywatcher]

I don't know what you're suggesting Spurlock is being dishonest about or why you assume that Whaely is not dishonest but in any case she did not duplicate Spurlock's experiment (which included eating everything on the menu at least once and accpepting the supersize whenever they asked).

What do you think is "not Kosher" about Spurlock's film and what is your evidence?All I said is that Spurlock refuses to be interviewed alongside Whaley. Whaley does want to be interviewed alongside him. Spurlock is acting like Sylvia Browne to Whaley's James Randi. Why?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What is Whaley claiming to be able to "debunk?"

Who's paying her? Why should we believe her? And why should Sperlock let his appearances be hijacked by some attention whore with an agenda?

[DocCathode]

. . . some attention whore with an agenda?

There are plenty of folks who would describe Spurlock the same way.

[Lute Skywatcher]

What is Whaley claiming to be able to "debunk?"
For one thing, that eating at McDonald's is what made him fat.Who's paying her? I don't think she's said.Why should we believe her?Why should we take Spurlock's word for everything, unchallenged?And why should Sperlock let his appearances be hijacked by some attention whore with an agenda?To prove that he isn't some attention whore with an agenda.

IMO, both sides are probably representing an extreme, which would put the truth somewhere in the middle. The problem with Spurlock not allowing Whaley around to counter his arguments is that he's the one with the movie out, which results in him being the one getting the majority of the interviews. John Stossel is pretty much the only one to interview Whaley. Thus, most people are just getting Spurlock's side. That's dishonest.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I still don't understand what the specific claim is. Sperlock didn't really gain that much weight (about 25 pounds), it was the other health problems that were the issue. Since he ate nothing else but McDonalds what are you suggesting DID causehis liver damag and weight gain?

I ask again, are all those doctors lying? is the entire crew involved with the film lying?

I don't know what this little stalker wants but Sperlock owes her nothing. Since all of his data is rather thoroughly recorded and documented I see no reason to disbelieve him and I don't see how the stalker's alleged experiment proves anything about what happened to Sperlock.

Sperlock himself presents a person on camera who virtually lives on Big Macs and is completely thin and healthy. Why would he do that if he wanted to prove that McDonalds will necessarily make anyone fat?

You have a very distorted view of what the movie is about. Why don't you actually see it. I'm positive that after you watch it you won't think that Sperlock is in any way unfair to McDonalds. the film is not a hatchet piece.

[Lynne_kilii]

Whaley, in the first page of her diary, says that Spurlock is not behaving scientifically, then turns around and says

I, on the other hand, am motivated to eat at McDonalds for 30 days to show just how easy it is to skew results of any test to reflect your preconceived notions and come up with just exactly the results you want to see. In my case I’m going to use some of the same parameters Mr. Spurlock used but I would rather see results which show I can maintain a healthy lifestyle and actually lose weight at McDonalds, so I will not be scarfing down Double Quarter Pounders with cheese. My real purpose is not to prove something, rather, I see this as a unique opportunity to explore food and weight issues and separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what is reported about our health and well being in the media and other sources. However, I would not attempt such a feat without being properly prepared to use critical thinking skills while engaging in this adventure so I ride into battle with the help of Steven Milloy, author of Junk Science Judo and founder of JunkScience.com.

She twists his experiment around, changing almost all of the parameters. She changes everything on the menu once to only stuff that is good for you, and I assume she changed excersise the same amount as the average American to work out at a healthy level. Which makes me want to slap her. Essentially, she's not doing the same experiment, even if I'm wrong about the excersise. And, to use her "critical thinking skills" she employs the help of someone else. Ouch. She probably has a valid point (which I assume is, if you eat in moderation, you'll be fine... which was Spurlocks point too. Don't eat the processed crap... wherever it comes from), but this paragraph irked me so much, and I didn't want to read 32 pages of AdobeAcrobat.

[Aeschines]

You really don't want to go down this path, do you? There is no such thing as the "paranormal." There is nothing there to "research." Your fantasies about ghosts and vampires are on a completely different order of plausibility than what can be known about the effects of a high fat, high sugar diet on the human body. The latter can actually be tested and evalutaed empirically. Your werwolf stories cannot,
Were you wasted when you wrote this post? You misspelled the dude's name every time, and there are numerous other misspellings, such as "werwolf" here.

Be that as it may, your wholesale mockery of the "paranormal" (I'm used to this by now; water off the duck) combined with a ludicrous credulity re Spurlock's claims does not speak well of your reasoning abilities.

There is nothing "rigged" about what Serlock does and during the course of this experiment he is being monitored by multiple doctors and a battery of tests at regular intervals throughout.

Here's the thing: HOW do I know that what I see is honest? You say there's nothing rigged. Where's the skepticism regarding the claims the film is making?

Medical data is collected constantly from start to finish. Before he started the doctors didn't think the consequences would be that severe, by the end of the month they're begging him to quit because they're afraid he's going to get liver failure. One doctor says that what he's doing to his liver is akin to drinking himself to death.
Again, how do I know that all this is honest? How do I know that he isn't drinking off-camera? Jeez, people say that Lekatt is dense in an argument--why do I have to keep repeating the same things to you? Why don't you listen/read?

Serlock never tries to draw any greater conclusions about what happens to him other that "this is what happened to me. The doctors are not so circumspect.
OK, I repeat: The plural of anecdote is NOT DATA. Got it, Mr. Skepticism?

And proof is offered for each and every claim.
Cool--I now know what you mean when you use the word "proof." I now know never to take you seriously again when you use this term.

What should I be skeptical about? Serlock backs up everything in the movie with ample medical evidence.

HTF would you know unless you were a doctor or familiar with medical research. Not understanding skepticism is one thing; not even understanding the limits of your own knowledge is even worse.

I find it far more implausible that he would engage a bunch of reputable doctors to lie on camera or that he would scretly find some way to poison his liver other than his diet (and in a manner that would be indistishable to multiple medical specialists from what would happen just from his diet) and what the hell could he do to himself that would be worse than the McDonalds food anyway?
Oh, so your certain that they're "reputable." Did you research that? Do you even know how propaganda works? Good propaganda is not a Jack Chick tract. Good propaganda is built up on both truth and lies so that it's convincing.

I don't even know what your point is. You don't believe that junk food is really bad for you? That doesn't surprise me. You have demonstrated a very casual attitude towards empirical reality on this board.

I already said in a different post that junk food is indeed bad for you (as if you would bother to read what I write). My point is that the movie proves nothing and your arguments in favor of it are 100% horsesh*t.

[Aeschines]

Not only that but much of it is actually chemically engineered to produce a drug reaction in the brain and a corresponding addiction.

Cite, please.

[Aeschines]

I still don't understand what the specific claim is. Sperlock didn't really gain that much weight (about 25 pounds), it was the other health problems that were the issue. Since he ate nothing else but McDonalds what are you suggesting DID causehis liver damag and weight gain?
A. He could have been drinking or using drugs.
B. He could have congenitive ailments.
C. He may have had an idiosyncratic reaction to the food that is unrelated to the wholesomeness of the food.

Use your imagination. Be a real skeptic.

I ask again, are all those doctors lying? is the entire crew involved with the film lying?
Yes, these are the questions a skeptic should be asking.
I don't know what this little stalker wants but Sperlock owes her nothing. Since all of his data is rather thoroughly recorded and documented I see no reason to disbelieve him and I don't see how the stalker's alleged experiment proves anything about what happened to Sperlock.
There you go; there's healthy doubt and skepticism at work here. Nice rhetoric, too, about the "little stalker."
Sperlock himself presents a person on camera who virtually lives on Big Macs and is completely thin and healthy. Why would he do that if he wanted to prove that McDonalds will necessarily make anyone fat?
I don't know. What is he trying to prove? What are is claims? What are yourclaims about his claims. You are making no sense.
You have a very distorted view of what the movie is about. Why don't you actually see it. I'm positive that after you watch it you won't think that Sperlock is in any way unfair to McDonalds. the film is not a hatchet piece.
No, but it's propaganda, whose obvious takeaway is that, as you say, McDonald's is "Satan" and genuinely awful for one's health. Something must be done, there oughta be a law, just think of the children, etc. etc.

[Aeschines]

Why is everything coming up italics, btw?!

[stringy]

In Australia, we're getting bombarded with these ads from the CEO of McDonald's Australia (15 times during the footy on Saturday night!). Spitting chips - McDonald's fights back (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065034025.html?oneclick=true). (I've actually seen the doco, unlike some of the people in here criticising it on false premises).

Some of the claims made by Russo (the CEO) in that article are pretty inaccurate.
For instance, he says that "We believe, and have always believed, that McDonald's can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet. What Mr Spurlock set out to do, which was double his daily calorie intake, deliberately not exercise and over-eat, was totally irresponsible."

Well, as Spurlock found out when he called 100 nutritionists, no nutritionist recommends eating McDonald's as part of a well-balanced diet. He didn't deliberately double his calorie intake, it's just what happens when you eat nothing but McDonalds, and that's not too far away from what some people do. His exercise was reduced to that of the average American, because it's average, normal Americans who are eating McDonalds. He only had 3 meals a day, no snacks, so he wasn't over-eating.

Again from the article:"'We've been taking the issue of obesity seriously for a few years now,' he said, referring to the introduction of salads, nutritional labelling and low-fat breakfasts." A few years now? The salads and low-fat breakfasts were introduced in Australia late last year, and the labelling only started a couple of months ago.

Last Thursday the late news on Ch. 10 had a sound-bite from Russo: he said they'd made the ad because "loyal customers of McDonalds" had told them to stand up for themselves. Poor multi-billion dollar corporation, being picked on by a guy who uses them as a gimmick to get people to watch his documentary about obesity and it's causes. My heart bleeds for them.

[Eliahna]

A small hijack: I was inspired by this thread to email McDonalds and complain that my local store has chosen not to stock apples. I believe they are the healthiest (and cheapest) item available, and was disappointed that our local McDonalds got rid of them less than a year after they were introduced, especially at a time where they're trying to "health up" their image. Today I got a phone call from the manager of the local store to say that because of my email they were going to put apples back on their menu. Yay me!

I didn't think of it at the time, but the manager said they originally found they weren't selling enough of them and he hated throwing away all the uneaten apples. I should have asked him why he didn't just include a free apple in Happy Meals if the stock pile looked like it wasn't going to move. He was just going to throw them away anyway.

[Jervoise]

Why is everything coming up italics, btw?!You failed to close your italics tag.
Were you wasted when you wrote this post? Uh.

[mbacko1]

Let me preface this by saying I have not seen SuperSize Me yet, so I will not comment on Spurlock's experiment. The one thing that he has mentioned in interviews I have read and I don't think many people know about is that our schoolchildren are being fed crap with little nutritional value in school. My wife is an elementary school teacher and she has been saying the same thing for years.
Back when I was in grade school the food was not that great, but at least they gave me vegetables or mashed or baked potatoes or something. A typical school lunch is now a Cheeseburger, French Fries, Soda, and a Cookie. Or Pizza, Soda, and Ice Cream. Seriously, the school dieticians consider ketchup a vegetable.
And some people wonder why so many kids are on drugs to calm their moods.
THEY ARE EATING TOO MUCH F***ING SUGAR! No wonder they are hyper and cannot focus.

As an aside, I am now in my early 30's and my metabolism is slowing down, which is typical for men my age. I recently changed jobs to a cubical position where I have a 1 1/2 hour drive to and from work and a 1/2 mile walk to work from the parking garage and 1/2 mile back to the car, but I pretty much sit in one place all day. I put on 30lbs in about a year and realized that I needed to change my diet and habits. I started doing workouts in the morning, and I cut soda out of my diet and instead I drink mostly water during the day and at dinner, with the occational alcoholic beverage to break up things. I have lost 15lbs. in 6 months.

I was able to figure out I needed to change something in my life to provide for better health, for some of my fellow Americans who need a kick in the butt, hopefully this movie can provide it. It is a selfish wish, I want to sit next to more people who can fit into the airline seats on domestic flights and not spill over into my seat. :)

[Lute Skywatcher]

I still don't understand what the specific claim is. Sperlock didn't really gain that much weight (about 25 pounds), it was the other health problems that were the issue. Since he ate nothing else but McDonalds what are you suggesting DID causehis liver damag and weight gain?A. He could have been drinking or using drugs.
B. He could have congenitive ailments.
C. He may have had an idiosyncratic reaction to the food that is unrelated to the wholesomeness of the food.Not to mention that he was consuming 5000 calories per day and not getting much exercise. Any food can cause problems when eaten in excess, Spurlock chose McDonald's. I'd like him to consume 5000 calories worth of Gardenburgers a day for a month and see what happens.You have a very distorted view of what the movie is about. Why don't you actually see it. I'm positive that after you watch it you won't think that Sperlock is in any way unfair to McDonalds. the film is not a hatchet piece.No, but it's propaganda, whose obvious takeaway is that, as you say, McDonald's is "Satan" and genuinely awful for one's health. Something must be done, there oughta be a law, just think of the children, etc. etc.Aeschines makes some good points. I have no idea what DtC is reading to think that I have a distorted view of the movie, my beef is with Spurlock himself. James K. Glassman (http://www.techcentralstation.com/bioglassmanjames.html) really (http://www.techcentralstation.com/032504F.html) has a beef with Spurlock (http://www.techcentralstation.com/052704G.html).

[Aeschines]

You failed to close your italics tag.
Nope. ALL threads below a certain level are in italics. Not just mine. It looks normal on preview, too.

I have also seen other threads recently that are all bold, etc.

[Jenny Haniver]

I saw the movie today. It does make a pretty powerful statement about the toxicity of junk food.

He did a lot more than gain weight, BTW. He also poisoned his liver, got intense heaches, heart palpitations, chest pains and a plethora of other problems.


Ok, I haven't seen the movie, nor am I a doctor, but I wonder - wouldn't the other health problems be mostly a result of putting on so much weight so quickly, rather than a testament to the "toxicity" of the food? I mean, he gained about 26 pounds, right? That's almost a pound a day. That rate of weight gain would have to strain your heart and liver, regardless of how you were going about putting on the weight, wouldn't it?

Do the doctors in the movie mention this at all?

On Topic, McD's is certainly giving this movie a lot of free publicity. However, I have long thought the push for everything to be super-sized was a revolting marketing ploy - they pretend it's a good deal because it's only $.30 more, but really they're just giving you more of the stuff they can afford to give away in quantities a single person can't reasonably finish. Saying yes everytime to the super-size deal is, I think what really screwed the pooch for the filmmaker's health, so if the OzD's don't even do the super-sized thing, then they'd be right to be kinda ticked off about it. He was probably eating a pound a day just in extra french fries.

[Ukulele Ike]

Why is everything coming up italics, btw?!
Italics tag fixed, italics all gone. Not sure why the following posts got italicized; I'll leave that for the Boffins to figure out.

[vetbridge]

McDonalds food is Satan. It's no use defending it.


I will give you that "McDonalds food is Satan". However, you realize that there are people who worship Satan, people who believe Satan is evil, and people who do not believe Satan exists. All these people do their own thing WRT Satan.

Why not let people have nutritional freedom also?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I will give you that "McDonalds food is Satan". However, you realize that there are people who worship Satan, people who believe Satan is evil, and people who do not believe Satan exists. All these people do their own thing WRT Satan.

Why not let people have nutritional freedom also?
Who said anything about restricting anyone's nutritional freedom? I don't care what anyone else eats. The movie is just a warning about personal responsibility.

I do think that as a society we've gotten pretty irresponsible about what we feed our kids, though. There is no reason on earth that pop machines need to be in school cafeterias, much less the selection of crap that is paid for with tax payer dollars.

[tracer]

Soso Whaley isn't the only person who's run a personal experiment to eat only at McDonalds for a month and lost (or maintained) weight:

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.921/healthissue_detail.asp :

On April 1, [Mr. Chazz Weaver] began eating all his meals — four or five per day — at McDonald's. He ate upwards of 3,000 calories per day and after two weeks had lost eight pounds (yes, lost). Since he didn't particularly want to lose weight, Weaver then increased his food intake to about 5,000 calories per day and managed to gain back about two pounds by the end of the month. His cholesterol improved, his blood pressure dropped a bit, and he says he feels just fine. How did he do it? Weaver works out at a gym daily — about an hour and fifteen minutes per day — split between aerobic exercise and resistance training. He was in good shape before he began his McDiet and remained so throughout. Anyone who wishes to do so can check the numbers for themselves at his website, www.truthinfitness.org. It’s an impressive testimonial to the importance of staying physically active.

[Raygun99]

A. He could have been drinking or using drugs.
B. He could have congenitive ailments.



Either of which you would think would come up or be discovered in the numerous physicals he took during the making of the movie, and would have shown up on camera.



No, but it's propaganda, whose obvious takeaway is that, as you say, McDonald's is "Satan" and genuinely awful for one's health. Something must be done, there oughta be a law, just think of the children, etc. etc.

Explicitly not so. The point of the film is consumer awareness of how food is marketed. Again his final point is food will only get healthier when we demand it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Soso Whaley isn't the only person who's run a personal experiment to eat only at McDonalds for a month and lost (or maintained) weight:

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.921/healthissue_detail.asp :
Once again, this experiment was not within the parameters of what Sperlock did. He deliberately restricted himself from exercising more than the average American.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

[quote=Aeschines]
A. He could have been drinking or using drugs.
B. He could have congenitive ailments.
C. He may have had an idiosyncratic reaction to the food that is unrelated to the wholesomeness of the food.

Use your imagination. Be a real skeptic.
[quote]


Okay.

D. Spurlock never gained any weight at all. In fact, he lost weight. He only appeared to gain weight due to trick editing. The movie was essentially shown backwards.
E. Morgan Spurlock is an agent of Burger King on a mission to destroy the competition.
F. Morgan Spurlock is a werewolf and the all-McDonald's diet is harmful to werewolf physiology, but fine for humans.
G. McDonald's doesn't exist. It's just an imaginary boogyman of the liberal media.

There's difference between healthy skepticism and absurd stubbornness.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, Spulock's point (presented with humor and wit) is that eating a high-calorie, high-fat, high-sugar diet and avoiding exercise is not a healthy way to live. Many companies spend vast amounts of money advertising unhealthy foods and much of that advertising is aimed a children. Additionally, many people eat this kind of stuff on a regular basis, even in school cafeterias.

[Duderdude2]

There's difference between healthy skepticism and absurd stubbornness.



And that dividing line is entirely subjective.

[tracer]

For anyone who still doesn't get it, Spulock's point (presented with humor and wit) is that eating a high-calorie, high-fat, high-sugar diet
And "high carb." Can't forget high carb. Carbohydrates are the trendy thing to blame weight problems on these days.

[Eliahna]

In Australia, we're getting bombarded with these ads from the CEO of McDonald's Australia (15 times during the footy on Saturday night!). Spitting chips - McDonald's fights back (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065034025.html?oneclick=true). (I've actually seen the doco, unlike some of the people in here criticising it on false premises).I think some of your criticisms are unfair.

Some of the claims made by Russo (the CEO) in that article are pretty inaccurate.
For instance, he says that "We believe, and have always believed, that McDonald's can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet. What Mr Spurlock set out to do, which was double his daily calorie intake, deliberately not exercise and over-eat, was totally irresponsible."

Well, as Spurlock found out when he called 100 nutritionists, no nutritionist recommends eating McDonald's as part of a well-balanced diet. He didn't deliberately double his calorie intake, it's just what happens when you eat nothing but McDonalds, and that's not too far away from what some people do. His exercise was reduced to that of the average American, because it's average, normal Americans who are eating McDonalds. He only had 3 meals a day, no snacks, so he wasn't over-eating.Russo didn't claim that nutritionists recommend eating McDonalds as part of a balanced diet. He said he and McDonalds Corp believe that it can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet. To me, that means not eating it every meal and not eating a large amount of it when you do have it. By it's very definition, a well-balanced diet is one that contains a variety of food and is within the recommended daily limits in regards to calories and fat. If you do over-eat or indulge in too many fatty/greasy/calorie laden foods, then you're not following a well-balanced diet. If you are moderate in your eating habits you can include the occasional McDonalds meal without adversely affecting your health. Therefore there's nothing blatantly untrue about that statement.

Again from the article:"'We've been taking the issue of obesity seriously for a few years now,' he said, referring to the introduction of salads, nutritional labelling and low-fat breakfasts." A few years now? The salads and low-fat breakfasts were introduced in Australia late last year, and the labelling only started a couple of months ago. Russo did not claim to have acted on the issue of obesity a few years ago, he only claimed that they started taking it seriously a few months ago. I did not interpret his statement to mean that they had been offering salads and nutritional panels for "a few years", just that the issue has become more of a concern for them. I imagine it would have taken McDonalds a long time to develop new menu items, source them, test them and finally implement them Australia-wide, and I see no reason to doubt that the issue has been on the table (so to speak) for a lot longer than the new products have been available.

Last Thursday the late news on Ch. 10 had a sound-bite from Russo: he said they'd made the ad because "loyal customers of McDonalds" had told them to stand up for themselves. Poor multi-billion dollar corporation, being picked on by a guy who uses them as a gimmick to get people to watch his documentary about obesity and it's causes. My heart bleeds for them.
Yeah, ok I agree there.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Soso Whaley isn't the only person who's run a personal experiment to eat only at McDonalds for a month and lost (or maintained) weight:

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/ne...ssue_detail.asp :Once again, this experiment was not within the parameters of what Sperlock did.That's the point! Spurlock and his movie have people saying that McDonald's is Eeeevil when the fact of the matter is it was his diet that caused his health problems. That's what his detractors are pointing out but many people don't want to hear it, least of all Spurlock himself. Yet Whaley is the one being labled an attention whore? :dubious:

What's more is Spurlock has gone back to eating burgers a few times a month, just not from McDonalds. I'm sure he's had enough of those. I'm sure he also knows that if he ever does start eating McDonalds again, his free publicity is likely to go *poof*.

[tracer]

You know, reading this thread makes me really hungry for a double Quarter Pounder with cheese.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's the point! Spurlock and his movie have people saying that McDonald's is Eeeevil when the fact of the matter is it was his diet that caused his health problems. That's what his detractors are pointing out but many people don't want to hear it, least of all Spurlock himself. Yet Whaley is the one being labled an attention whore? :dubious:

What's more is Spurlock has gone back to eating burgers a few times a month, just not from McDonalds. I'm sure he's had enough of those. I'm sure he also knows that if he ever does start eating McDonalds again, his free publicity is likely to go *poof*.
Spurlock and the movie do not claim that McDonalds is evil. Spurlock, in the movie, blames his weight gain and health problems squarely on his diet and lack of exercise, not on McDonalds.

If you haven't seen the film then quit making pronouncements about what it says or doesn't say. McDonalds is just a symbol in the film. Spurlock is saying this is what happens when you eat crap and don't exercise. The source of the crap is not the point.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Spurlock and the movie do not claim that McDonalds is evil. Spurlock, in the movie, blames his weight gain and health problems squarely on his diet and lack of exercise, not on McDonalds.

If you haven't seen the film then quit making pronouncements about what it says or doesn't say. McDonalds is just a symbol in the film. Spurlock is saying this is what happens when you eat crap and don't exercise. The source of the crap is not the point.Still misreading my words, I see. Here they are again: "Spurlock and his movie have people saying that McDonald's is Eeeevil when the fact of the matter is it was his diet that caused his health problems." This is not any sort of proclomation against the movie but rather the audience! Specifically, the part of the audience that leaves thinking, "Wow! McDonald's is Eeeevil!" This is where the source of the crap is that point and what Spurlock's detractors are addressing.

[Raygun99]

What's more is Spurlock has gone back to eating burgers a few times a month, just not from McDonalds. I'm sure he's had enough of those. I'm sure he also knows that if he ever does start eating McDonalds again, his free publicity is likely to go *poof*.

IIRC, he said on his Daily Show interview that he still eats there occasionally. This is only hypocritical if you mistake his message as "Don't eat fast food or McDonalds, ever", which it is absolutely not.

[Duderdude2]

IIRC, he said on his Daily Show interview that he still eats there occasionally. This is only hypocritical if you mistake his message as "Don't eat fast food or McDonalds, ever", which it is absolutely not.

But that is how it is perceived by many, including the media. That is, of course, in no part thanks to the title "Supersize Me" :rolleyes:

[Lute Skywatcher]

IIRC, he said on his Daily Show interview that he still eats there occasionally. This is only hypocritical if you mistake his message as "Don't eat fast food or McDonalds, ever", which it is absolutely not.He has specifically said that he's avoiding McDonald's but I don't know if it was on the Daily Show or not. There's a link in the second or third page of pizzabrat's trainwreck of a Pit thread but I don't have time to look it up at the moment.

Duderdude2: exactly. That's the point that DtC keeps missing.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Mens' Health (http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article/printer_friendly/0,2826,s1-6-40-6-1425,00.html) was the one with this: Today, I still eat burgers (although not McDonald's), but probably just once a month.

A clip of The Daily Show interview can be found at Comedy Central's official site (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos.jhtml). Spurlock talks about a Pavlovian effect from the smell of their food but not eating. Was there more than what Comedy Central has?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He has specifically said that he's avoiding McDonald's
So what? He's not telling anyone else not to eat at McDonalds. I fail to see any hypocrisy in simply being sick of McDonalds himself. I repeat for like the 50th time: Sperlock does not attack McDonalds in the movie.
Duderdude2: exactly. That's the point that DtC keeps missing.
No, the point you keep missing is that people who have actually seen the film do not come out with an impression that Sperlock was attacking the McDonalds. Theb only people who have the notion that the movie is a hatchet piece on McD's are people who have not seen it.

[Lute Skywatcher]

No, the point you keep missing is that people who have actually seen the film do not come out with an impression that Sperlock was attacking the McDonalds. Theb only people who have the notion that the movie is a hatchet piece on McD's are people who have not seen it.Wrong. Our own pizzabrat has seen the movie and used it as an example of why McDonald's food is dangerous.

[Lute Skywatcher]

So what? He's not telling anyone else not to eat at McDonalds. I fail to see any hypocrisy in simply being sick of McDonalds himself. I repeat for like the 50th time: Sperlock does not attack McDonalds in the movie.And I repeat for like the 50th time: it's not about the movie (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5000597#post5000597)!

[Duderdude2]

And I repeat for like the 50th time: it's not about the movie (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5000597#post5000597)!

Right, I would think it's more about the media's fallout and how its affecting public perception. This thread is proof enough of that.

[Cheesesteak]

Once again, this experiment was not within the parameters of what Sperlock did. He deliberately restricted himself from exercising more than the average American.Ok, so can we be in agreement then that "eating every meal at McDonalds" isn't what made him sick? It's "eating every meal at McDonalds while following rigid experimental parameters" that made him sick.

Parameters like:
Eating every item on the menu without regard to what you want to eat, or what is healthy
Eating meals even if you're not hungry
Supersizing when asked rather than when you wish to
Eating the entire meal, every time, rather than stopping if you're sated

It seems apparent to me that it was these rules that caused him to become ill, not the quality of McDonald's food. Go into ANY good restaurant, and you'll be asked, would you like an appetizer, entree, dessert, coffee, etc... eat all that every single day every single meal and you'd be sick as a dog too. Unfortunately, he used McDonalds and fast food as his target so they're fighting back.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Ok, so can we be in agreement then that "eating every meal at McDonalds" isn't what made him sick? It's "eating every meal at McDonalds while following rigid experimental parameters" that made him sick.

Parameters like:
Eating every item on the menu without regard to what you want to eat, or what is healthy
Eating meals even if you're not hungry
Supersizing when asked rather than when you wish to
Eating the entire meal, every time, rather than stopping if you're sated.He also snacked between meals.

[Wolfian]

C.) John Stossel is a tool (it bears repeating).

Dogbert? Is that you?

[DocCathode]

Dogbert? Is that you?

Were you aware of Diogenes other sobriquet before you asked that?

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Wolfian is asking a poster named for Diogenes the Dog, whether or not he's Dogbert?

[fluiddruid]

Thanks to everyone above who said nice things about my personal decisions. I haven't been perfect this week but I have been a LOT better. I have been cooking quite a bit and keeping to healthy, unprocessed foods most of the time. I have cracked my habit of needing to stop for a treat in the cafeteria or on the way to/from work successfully.

Drinking more water -- well, it's a good trick to lose weight to feel full. I'm not where I'd like to be on the water, but I am trying to drink more to stop drinking so much soda (though I never drink anything but diet soda). I haven't had a Diet Coke all week, which is my 'other' addiction.

I have also exercised quite a bit using my new Dance Dance Revolution set and that is going very well. I like it and am getting better at it, and am already able to keep going longer.

I think it's quite relevant that this sort of self-examination was the moral of the film. The moral was not that McDonalds is bad, but that corporations are there to make money, not take care of you -- so you have to take care of yourself.

[stringy]

I think it's quite relevant that this sort of self-examination was the moral of the film. The moral was not that McDonalds is bad, but that corporations are there to make money, not take care of you -- so you have to take care of yourself.

I think the majority of viewers came away from the movie with this moral.

Good luck with your new eating plan - I'm doing a similar thing myself, after seeing the movie. It's been hard to give up some of the crap I'd been eating, but I feel a lot better for it. I hope you're feeling the benefits too?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ok, so can we be in agreement then that "eating every meal at McDonalds" isn't what made him sick? It's "eating every meal at McDonalds while following rigid experimental parameters" that made him sick.

Parameters like:
Eating every item on the menu without regard to what you want to eat, or what is healthy
Eating meals even if you're not hungry
Supersizing when asked rather than when you wish to
Eating the entire meal, every time, rather than stopping if you're sated

It seems apparent to me that it was these rules that caused him to become ill, not the quality of McDonald's food.
Well the quality of the McDonalds food was part of it but he says it was his self-imposed "rules" that made him sick. He doesn't blame McDonalds in the film. Between this and the pit thread I'm getting exhausted from arguing with people who haven't seen the movie misrepresenting what it says.

The film is about personal choices. It'snot about McDonalds. It doesn't blame McDonalds. Can we get that straight, please?

[stringy]

Russo didn't claim that nutritionists recommend eating McDonalds as part of a balanced diet. He said he and McDonalds Corp believe that it can be eaten as part of a well-balanced diet.

Sorry, I don't think I was clear before. The reason I brought up nutritionists: in the movie Spurlock finds that in the legal documents from when Maccas got sued by some girls, they claimed that nutritionists say their food can be part of a healthy diet, and that once a week is an ok frequency to be eating it. Spurlock then rings up 100 nutritionists out of the phone book, and only about 15 (from memory) say that McDonald's should be part of a well-balanced diet, and then only about once a month or less. Another 2 said that once a week was ok. (Another few said "Oh God no, don't eat *any* McDonalds!" which was funny, it's a funny movie, something that hasn't been mentioned enough in this thread so far!).

So 98% of nutritionists disagree with the claims McDonald's make about their food. If I were to eat nothing but vegetables for a month, I wouldn't be getting a balanced diet, but I wouldn't have doctors begging me to stop because they feared for my lifeeither.

In my opinion, Russo is nitpicking and he's misrepresenting the reasons Spurlock did what he did. Spurlock just wanted to talk about obesity and personal responsibility. For Russo to take it personally shows that he's afraid of what might happen if we make our own decisions instead of letting Maccas tell us they're all healthy now.

I did not interpret his statement to mean that they had been offering salads and nutritional panels for "a few years", just that the issue has become more of a concern for them. I imagine it would have taken McDonalds a long time to develop new menu items, source them, test them and finally implement them Australia-wide, and I see no reason to doubt that the issue has been on the table (so to speak) for a lot longer than the new products have been available.

Fair enough. But the purpose of the ads is to make it sound as if Spurlock is being massively unfair to them. Maccas has been serving up crap for over 30 years and they're only bringing in the healthier stuff now because of public pressure. If it weren't for court cases and films like this, Supersize would still be on the menu in the US, and we certainly wouldn't be getting salads or yogurt from them.

[tracer]

I have been cooking quite a bit and keeping to healthy, unprocessed foods most of the time.
Just a clarification:

Whether a food item is "processed" or unprocessed has very little effect on whether it's healthy or not. Whole wheat macaroni and unprocessed cheese can prok you up and whack out your cholesterol every bit as much as the Kraft stuff in a box can.

[tracer]

(And by "prok," I mean "pork.")