I assume that you are missing the point of my posts to this thread. I have stated more than once that I am fully aware that this was basically a publicity stunt and that he was trying to gain weight to prove a point. I get that. All that I was doing was pointing out that it was factually incorrect to state that he was eating nothing but the worst items on the menu.
Wow pizzabrat, way to ignore the previous 20 odd posts directed at you asking you specific questions.
So, where to we go for pre-approval of questions we can direct at you, that will actually be answered? I, and I’m sure other posters would like to know so that we can stop wasting our time and keystrokes formulating intelligent and reasonable inquiries that continue to be ignored.
Oh, so it was a SATIRICAL SITUATION all along? So you were only kidding!
Well, so was I. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Removing all my animus from the situation, your OP used a “death spike” as an analogy to fast food. That is an illogical analogy. Further, the subject of the movie Super Size Me acted in a manner that was deliberately self-destructive, and only proved that his diminishing health was his own fault.
You went beyond that, though, to preemptively accuse anyone who disagreed with you as having a “kneejerk” reaction, as well as feeling “jealous defensiveness”. Before the thread had even begun you were being deliberately antagonistic. You simply have no business being shocked by the reaction you received, nor have you any basis for claiming to feel unwarranted hostility, when you started with unwarranted hostility.
Animus back on in five, four, three, two…
Idiot.
Bluethree, you weren’t being serious here when you suggested adding this warning label to fast food, were you?
According to my research and calculations:
The recommended daily intake is: 2,000 calories and 65g fat per day. So for 2 1/2 days, that would be 5,000 calories and 162.5 g fat.
Big Mac = 540 calories, 29g fat
Large french fries = 520 calories, 25g fat
So the hamburger and fries contain a total of 1,060 calories and 54 g fat.
1,060 calories/54 g fat does not equal
5,000 calories/162.5g fat
The hamburger and french fries would need to have 3 times as much fat in them to make your statement work.
Pizzabrat, you stated you are criticizing “any company that sells dentrimental products.” So, do you also feel the same way about tobacco and alcohol? The former is bad no matter what, but worse in excess, and the latter is fine in moderation but harmful in excess, which is the same as fast food. Let’s hear your outcries about these companies. Should people boycott alcohol until all the breweries, wineries and distilleries topple over?
Also you criticize McDonalds for producing products that are way too high in fats and sugar. So are you also opposed to the makers of sugar, butter, cooking oil, milk and the like? These are the raw forms of the evils of which you speak.
Lastly, why are you called “pizzabrat,” anyway? Because you like pizza, perhaps? Well I would say that not only is pizza a fast food but just as full of evil fats and calories as McDonald’s food. Please respond.
And that’s exactly my (to date ignored) point up there.
Clearly there is a societal decision that warning labels, age restrictions, and even outright banning are a viable option for certain products that bring with them health risks.
To suddenly cry ‘It’s their choice!’ to eat McDonalds while not doing so for those who wish to smoke cigarettes/drink scotch/shoot crank/choose your (literal) poison is intellectually inconsistent.
Again, anyone who thinks marijuana is deadly and should be banned but drinks scotch regularly is a fool. The societal costs of scotch far exceed those for weed.
Hear, hear!!
Good points. I would like to hear a discussion about why we put warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol, and ban other substances, but don’t do this with other products. Realisticially, would we/could we label fast foods and junk foods? Something to think about.
It really doesn’t seem to me that kids are as much their target market as in years gone by. It’s my understanding that they’ve been working in the last few years towards a more adult market. I know they still have the clown, the playland, and the happy meals, but there’s no more McDonaldland characters festooning all their advertising, and most (not all) of the tv ads I’ve seen lately were decidedly not very kid-oriented.
They also do now have more options for healthier kids meals - even if a kid is sucked in by the clown, playland, and happy meals, I for one would feel not worries about taking my child for the occasional happy meal of a small grilled cheese, milk, and sliced apple.
First off, my apologies for coming in late. The title didn’t give any clue what this thread is about.
With that out of the way, I would like to point out that it is possible to eat at McDonald’s three times a day for a month and lose weight. Am I the only one here who has heard of Soso Whaley? From the first link: “It’s just food,” she said. “It’s not evil.”
Once again, while I agree that McDonalds is unhealthy, I think you should see the movie before saying things like this. Spurlock wasn’t the one to make this claim.
–p
I’m not sure that was Tengu’s point. Rather, I think Tengu was pointing out that there’s no reason whatsoever to be surprised that Spurlock gained weight and suffered a general health decline on his McDonald’s-only regimen. Spurlock didn’t exactly make a scientific breakthrough, though I’m sure his results will be happily printed in DUH! Medical Journal, not to mention seized on by sensationalism-seeking media outlets whose treatment of the subject is superficial, at best.
Yeah blah blah French paradox fine. You’re almost certainly right. It’s not the high-fat thing then. Nonetheless he goes from 23 in his liver fat indicators to about 237 (briefly visible in the movie) after ten days of the diet. What are you suggesting happened?
–p
In fact, that was exactly Spurlok’s entire point; not that high-fat food is bad (because it’s not, as long as it’s food), but that McDonald’s ostensibly edible chemical-laden products are toxic. Hm, three pages into this, I’m starting to realize that maybe everybody doesn’t know why it’s bad for you. I assumed that people knew I was ranting against McDonald’s because they serve manufactured garbage, not just because their products are high in fat.
Although Spurlock claims he wasn’t a vegetarian prior to filming, his body’s inital reacton to the food (vomiting) could be an indication that it wasn’t accustomed to such a diet.
Falsely accusing us of ignorance doesn’t prove your point.
It does lend evidence to my point that you’re an idiot, though.
I allowed that I may have been misunderstood. The only ignorance I’m accusing anyone of is that of my point.
Okay, animus off again. sub[/sub] What exactly is your point? As I understand it, it may be one of the following:
[ul][li]You believe McDonald’s food isn’t really food at all, but inexpensive substances resembling food that are actually toxic.[/li][li]“processed-food firms are a worthless blight on the marketplace and society.”[/li][li]Defending the rights of McDonalds to sell their product, and of consumers to buy it, is somehow bad (I haven’t figured this part out yet)[/li][/ul]
Beyond these (none of which are particularly compelling), I’m honestly unable to determine what, if any, point you’re making.
What you’re suggesting we “misunderstood” was your claim that McDonald’s food is “manufactured garbage”. It isn’t being misunderstood, it’s simply not being accepted as true, or at least not accepted to the degree you seem to want. There are plenty of foods that aren’t good for humans, in the sense that eating a lot of them would be harmful. That’s doesn’t prove such foods are “garbage”, though, nor does it prove they shouldn’t qualify as “food”.
You’ve started the thread with assumptions and then tried to promote certain conclusions. Since your assumptions aren’t being accepted, neither are your conclusions. The failing is yours, not ours…
[sub]click![/sub]
… you dumbass.
Forget it. You just want to misrepresent me and call names, I’m not sure why. For the trillionth time, I never challenged the right of McDonald’s to sell its products, I questioned the ethics. I also questioned why that questioning of ethics should be met with such harsh admonishment, even from people who don’t even like McDonald’s. Why do I have to be an idiot just for sharing the fact that I dislike McDonald’s? What the hell is your problem?
Well, you’re finding out that a lot of us don’t see anything particularly unethical about McDonald’s.
Somebody’s gotta be the idiot. This week it’s you.
Well, first of all- it is highly unlikely that a month of eating McD’s would do any detectable damage to your liver. :dubious: That part appears to be a “big fat lie”.
Same with the loss of potency (unless it was all in his mind, which is very possible). Note that eating high fat foods for an extended period might well do all that. But not for a month. :dubious:
Next of all- you could eat 3 meals a day at McD’s and not gain a pound- or even as Jeff points out- lose weight. Even if your tried everything on the menu once. They make salads you know- nice tasty healthful salads. The frozen yogurt is OK if you don’t get carried away. And, of course- eating a “Big Mac” even "supersized’ once a week or so won’t hurt you either.
He claims he prefers “In&Out”, and so do I. I admit that the fresh tomato & lettuce on the I&O burger might make it a tad more healthful- but eating a “double-double”, fries and a shake or sugar soda for 3 times a day, 7 days a week for a month will have you gaining those same 20 pounds if not more. I wouldn’t suggest eating pizza for a month solid either.
And the “vomit” scene? Give me a fucking break. So staged I can’t beleive anyone bought it.
Spurlock is a liar & a fraud, and promotes bad science (a “vegan detoxify diet” :rolleyes: ). Dudes like to bash McD’s- and so they saw his stupid film.