Questions About "Supersize me"

From http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html:

Big Mac: 560 calories, 30 g fat

Asian Salad with Crispy Chicken (worst salad on the list) plus creamy caesar dressing (worst on the list): 560 calories, 35 g fat

Caesar Salad with Grilled Chicken (best you can do and still get chicken) plus low fal balsamic (best dressing on the list): 260 calories, 9 g fat

So it really is about what you choose.

No, it really isn’t. There is no significant difference in calories or fat between the burgers and the salads but the dressings are loaded with sugar (something that’s not in the burgers), so the burgers are marginally less toxic.

By the way, the movie pointed out that the guy who ate Big Macs every day never ate the fries. The fries are one of the most fattening items on the menu (along with the pop).

That’s true, and if I recall correctly the Big Mac eater was a tall thin man who said he rarely ate any fries and he had to start eating two Big Macs in one sitting because they got smaller.

I was going to say I wasn’t sure if it was balanced but then I remembered he tried to get McDonald’s to talk to him without much success. I think too many people focus on his month long eating stunt and forget that there was more to the documentary. I really liked the exploration of school lunches and snacks.

Marc

Oh, and lissener, the reason people focus on the McDonald’s experiement and not the rest of the film, is gee…well it’s called Super Size Me, right? A reference to McDonald’s right, not the sorry state of the US school lunch program? If that were Spurlock’s goal, he would have given it a title referring to school lunches or whatever right? And on closer inspection, those are McDonald’s fries in his mouth on the DVD box and posters, right, not the trademark crinkle cut school lunch fries? Plus every interview I’ve seen with the guy focuses on the McDonald’s part. Without that, an expose on the school lunch progam wouldn’t even merit a segment on 60 minutes. Include McDonald’s, you get attention and riches.

Ah. So you have a *gist *of an understanding.

And if you could get even a gist of all that goes on in a film from an IMDB summary, then that would be relevant here. Are we discussing the summary, or the movie?

So . . . these are the examples referred to by Bairn and JT? These “experimenters” who had explicitly stated agendas, and carefully limited their diet to achieve those atgendas? Who’s got the biased approach here; Bairn’s examples, or Spurlock, who sampled everything available, rather than stick to a narrowly limited diet chosen specifically to fulfill an agenda?

So . . . we’re discussing the IMDB summary, and the title, which is where you admit you gathered most of your information from . . . rather than the actual content of the actual film. Just so I understand your standards here.

Was I playing computer games while watching? No. Did I pause when I got up to pee? no. Did I replay the 2 minutes the crappy DVD skipped over? no. But do I feel my viewing afforded me a full understanding of the points he was trying to get across? Yes.

And what I said was, my inattentive watching of the film afforded me a darn similar summary as to the one on IMDB, which means that I got the same understanding from my watching that I would have gotten with attentive watching- documentaries usually don’t require the same attention from the viewer as Momento.

No, he would’ve given it a title that was catchy and memorable—which he did. “Super Size Me,” in case you failed to realize, is a pun; by eating unhealthily from fast food joints, you’re in effect asking them to “super-size” you. The “super size” meme was common in fast food a few years ago; I don’t recall it being specific to McD’s.

WTF? All schools serve the same cut of fries? I’ve heard a lot of carping about Spurlock, but this is the loopiest objection yet.

So blame the interviewers, who ignore the more substantive part of Spurlock’s work in favor of focusing on the stunt.

Sounds to me like Spurlock did exactly the right thing in that case.

I like the Asian Salad, but I get it with the grilled chicken (no breading) and the low-fat balsamic dressing. I use about half of what comes in the packet, because otherwise the salad is just swimming in it. Sometimes they give you croutons, sometimes they don’t. I skip them, but add the slivered almonds.

*Exactly * what Spurlock did. He did not attempt to eat a balanced eit, he ate 2-3X a healthy caloric intake. Sure, he ate one of everything on the menu, but he unfairly concentrated on a diet heavy on burgers, fries and sugared sodas, and also overate heavily. Indeed Spurlock stuck to a “narrowly limited diet chosen specifically to fulfill an agenda”. Spurlock went in to make this film with a clear agenda which I think anyone who is unbiased can see.

You seem also to equate (in your back&forth with the very patient Wee Bairn) “understanding = agreement”. Many zealots do exactly the same thing, they feel that since you don’t agree, you didn’t *understand. *

I understood exactly what Spurlock was up to- to demonize the biggest target in the FF industry and make a cool pile by cashing in with a rather large audience that agrees with him that Ronald Mcd is Satan. He was preaching to the choir- and you seem to be singing along.

A bit off-topic again:
I went to the McD’s website referenced and calculated the Asian Salad with grilled chicken and the low-fat balsamic dressing.
It has 330 calories, 12 grams of fat (1.5 saturated), 1620 mgs of sodium (okay, that’s kinda high), 27 carbs, and 31 grams of protein. I’m actually impressed.

Again, it’s all about choices.

Wrong. “Super Size” was a registered trademark of McDonalds at the time of shooting and release. Because of the upcoming controversy that they saw coming, McDonalds allowed the trademark to lapse just two months prior to the films release.

Any argument that this film doesn’t focus on McDonalds for the vast majority of its message, content, and marketing is not substantiated by the filmmaker himself, the films content or its marketing and promotional materials. Nor is it substantiated by the number of newspaper articles written about the film, nor by the press releases issued by the filmmaker during the films release.

Following are some of the “fun facts” from the official website - I edited everything down that wasn’t about McDonalds, fast food restaurants or school lunches:

Damn. Not a mention of school lunches in the bunch. :frowning:

Do you actually think you’re proving something about the content of the movie by quoting from its promotional copy? The movoe wasn’t about McDonalds. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s simply not the case.

Dude, bottom line is you didn’t pay enough attention not to miss the bits that you missed. Trust me, if all the “gist” of the documentary could be communicated in an IMDB blurb, well then there’d be no reason to make the movie, would there? Me, I just read movie-poster blurbs and then write my own in-depth reviews.

And that’s part of why I have a problem with this whole thing. Notice how Spurlock has not done a thing to disuade people from thinking that the movie is about McD’s? We’ve got random people on message boards doing that but Spurlock himself keeps mum. Something’s wrong with this picture.

Let me get this straight. Now you’re going so far as to say that choosing a salad with half the calories and a third of the fat of a Big Mac doesn’t make any difference? Because there’s some sugar in the dressing?

So your reasoning seems to be that no matter what McD sells, it’s EEEVIL. If they start offering a plain head of lettuce and a side of raw carrot, I suppose you’re going to say they’re still just trying to kill people with raw vegetables.

You’ve got some pretty hardcore agenda here that makes you immune to logic.

They changed the salads after the movie, but they’re still loaded with fat and sugar and they’re not good for you… I don’t care if you eat them, though. It baffles me why anyone is so invested in denying that fast food is bad for them.