Did you just use “delicious” and “McDonald’s” in the same sentence? :eek:
But, as per mcgato’s post, that’s not what Spurlock did: “He would go in for lunch and order a big Mac combo and a quarter pounder with cheese combo and an apple pie. The two combos would be upsized and would somehow attempt to down the entire order.” Is mcgato correct about Spurlock disregarding – indeed, doubling – the pitched portion size?
It is, when you look at it from the perspective of one family being responsible for 9-12 portions per week (assuming 3 kids, 3 healthy meals a week) vs. a school having to produce hundreds of portions every day.
Back to the OP…
I think that Spurlock was certainly disingenuous about his methodology, diet and its effects.
I also think that the reason he did that wasn’t intentionally to single out McD’s, but rather use them as a proxy for the fast food industry as a whole.
With those things said, I think that the problem with “Super Size Me” is twofold- first, he didn’t do his research as to what “typical Americans” eat or how they exercise, and second, he artificially inflated the rate of consumption and the amount at each feeding.
Maybe he did this as a sort of strange reverse reduction ad absurdum, but the ultimate effect was that people both think that McDonald’s itself is somehow more unhealthy than other fast food places, which isn’t necessarily the case. I’m sure that ALL fast food places are just about as unhealthy, and for that matter, so are places like Chili’s or TGI Friday’s, or even your own kitchen, if you go around cooking hamburgers and deep-fried potatoes all day.
McD phased out its super-sized menu the year after the movie came out. You may be looking at a reduced calorie count, horrifying as that might be.
IIRC, the entree salads were not featured at McD’s when Spurlock did his trial. I’m certain the snack wraps were absent. On the other hand, the Angus burgers weren’t on the menu, either. But I do think if he really ate some of the items such as apple dippers, milk, and the salads in his rotation, he might have still gained weight, but otherwise not have had untoward effects.
I think others have pointed out that he actually ate rather few super-sized meals during the course of the film.
You can still put together essentially the same menu items into representative combos - and remember, Spurlock was only asked to Super Size eight times.
Just do the math yourself, following Spurlock’s claimed rules. His 5000-calorie claim is not possible.
That would be unheard of for metro Atlanta schools. Numerous students I went to school with, had classes with, were on free or reduced price lunch. The same school system I went to even started having school breakfast. The rationale here was that the same students didn’t get any breakfast at all, and that the offering at school was [relative] better than other options. There is also the entire “brain fuel” and start the day off right schools of thought here as well.
Spurlock, and Oliver [Food Revolution] bring up good points, but part of me wonders if US Agriculture will ever change. I think it is as ingrained in US culture as Imperial is. We have gone too far to reverse course now. I don’t know enough as I should on corn subsidies, but I would wager that, that is part of the problem as well. Artificial prices becoming a double edged sword.
To the OP:
Spurlock had a show called “30 Days”. In the episode where he lived [and worked a job] on minimum wage for 30 days, it was obvious that he was getting run down. Both he and his fiancee had to seek medical attention. I was left thinking that ““most”” people would have fared better. IMHO, given this, and the [Day 2?] experience he had in Super-Size me, **I must conclude that Spurlock’s constitution is less than most. **
30 Days was interesting, but you’re right, I remember that episode painting Spurlock in a very poor light. The rest of the episodes (with real people) were much better.
As much as I hated Super Size Me, I’m interested in seeing The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, because I know Spurlock is going to completely screw up his premise somehow.
Not possible? My preferred McDonald’s meal would be the Big Mac, Large Fries and a Large Coke. That comes to 1,350 calories. My breakfast preference would be Egg McMuffin, hash browns a large OJ and a large coffee. That comes to 1,010. If I just had the same Big Mac meal for lunch and dinner, that’s going to be 3,710. All I would need to do is get a shake or a sundae and I’m looking at around 4,500 to 4,700 calories.
So, looking only at what I’d like to eat there, and not looking to maximize the calories, I come fairly close to 5,000 calories.
The thing is, those McDonald’s calories are pretty empty. That is, for all those calories, I wouldn’t feel as satiated as if I’d had the type of meal I’d prepare for myself at home, usually with fewer calories.
That’s also using their current calorie content listings. I don’t know if it would have been more or less prior to Super Size Me, but I would imagine that they’ve tried to cut things down a bit since then.
What seems funny to me regarding those who attack Super Size Me, is that often they seem to be waging a defense of a particular corporation. Many people seem to have no problem blaming people for getting fat by being lazy, self-indulgent and impulsive. However, if one is to suggest that a corporation is either benefiting from or even encouraging such behavior because it helps their profits, then the shields suddenly come flying up.
Because that’s ridiculous. McDonald’s doesn’t make people fat and the fact that Spurlock kept pushing that point (again, to the brink of serious injury) makes people a little twitchy.
Well, you don’t have to believe that a steady diet of McDonald’s killed somebody in a month because Morgan Spurlock did not die from that experiment.
His arteries got a bit clogged, his heart rate got messed up, and he gained a bunch of weight and felt like shit. But it didn’t kill him and he didn’t claim it did.
My statement was that McDonald’s benefits from, and perhaps even encourages, lazy, self-indulgent, or impulsive eating habits.
You find that statement to be ridiculous? Without rewording it to say something that I didn’t say, please explain how.
I find it to be ridiculous because everyone knows that fast food is unhealthy. You can throw around claims of irresponsibility all you want, but this is something you learn as a little kid. McDonald’s tastes good, but it is unhealthy.
Wait. So when you responded to what I said with “that’s ridiculous,” what you meant was “everybody knows that”?
It sounds like you are saying that McDonald’s should not be held to any account for declining health trends since everyone knows that they are unhealthy. Spurlock, by the same token, must be at fault because he made a point out of something that everyone already knows.
It is an interesting logic, to be sure.
In a CNBC interview, he admitted to snacking between meals.
Sure McDonald’s encourages those things, but then again, so does anything beyond growing your own vegetables, crops and livestock to butcher, process and eat yourself.
It’s a matter of degree.
I think the major flaw was to choose one company to single out, and also to try and prove his point through hyperbolic methods.
It’s probably safe to say that few people eat fast food 3 meals a day for extended periods. It’s also probably safe to say that most everyone eats some fast food as part of their diet.
By eating fast food entirely and totally, and trying to maximize the caloric intake and then limiting himself to a single fast-food company, he both artificially exaggerates the ill-effects of the food, and simultaneously implies that it’s the food of that one company that causes this.
It could have just as easily been done with Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, or even freezer-case items like Stouffer’s and Marie Callender’s,
Eating McDonalds a couple of times a week isn’t going to hurt you one bit if you eat reasonably well the rest of the time, but that’s not what the documentary says- it implies that McDonald’s food is somehow extraordinarily unhealthy in a way that a hamburger and french fries of the same size made at home is not, which isn’t the case.
“Admitted”? Is that perceived to be a violation of the terms? (Did he snack on McDonald’s food?)
I think a month of nothing but Marie Callender’s would provide more vegetables (albeit frozen/overcooked). But sure, any of these would probably have “worked” about as well, in terms of Spurlock’s own experience. But not quite as well in terms of getting the concept out and sparking debate. Choosing McDonald’s is a symbolic gesture–they’re the single biggest fast food purveyor in the world, right?–and a hook to get people interested. There’s nothing wrong with that, as such.
Really? I would have thought that there would be no controversy to the claim that comparable foods made at home would be much healthier, including lower in calories. A little googling suggests this, but nothing quickly comes up to completely refute your assertion. Do you have any evidence to support it? Keep in mind that a small hamburger and a large fries from McDonalds would weigh in at 750 calories.
Nitpick: a sundae at McD is only 330 calories. A large shake is 1100. Desserts all seem to get lumped into this undifferentiated pile of “bad for you”, but there’s really quite a bit of variation. Heck. a McDs cone only has 150 calories and is probably one of the best “sweet treats” out there for a dieter.
As far as overeating/unhealthy eating, I really think Chili’s/Applebee’s type places are worse: the al la carte nature of McDonald’s imposes some kind of portion control.