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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Luckily, not his point.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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?
And I don’t see any “deception” or “distortion” coming from my paranormal researcher friends. You gonna believe them?
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.”
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.
Oooohh… I really want a Big Mac now. :smack:
(no, really)
Plenty.
How is that sophist?
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,
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.
And proof {i]is* offered for each and every claim.
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.
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).
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?
Oh and I forgot to say:
John Stossell is a tool… 