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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
For one thing, that eating at McDonald’s is what made him fat.
I don’t think she’s said.
Why should we take Spurlock’s word for everything, unchallenged?
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.
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.
Whaley, in the first page of her diary, says that Spurlock is not behaving scientifically, then turns around and says
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.