'30 Days' with Morgan Spurlock

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Amused
If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

"Know the enemy and know yourself."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Amused
If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

"Know the enemy and know yourself."

I know him enough from his movie. I don't need to know anymore.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Amused

The myth that eating healthy is more expensive is just that, a myth.

It's more difficult and time consuming to prepare your own foods, but it is NOT more expensive. In fact, in many cases, it's cheaper.

My grocery bill is lower than if I ate out at fast food places all week. And I buy no junk food or munchies (I'm a body builder).

I'd like to live where you do, because here, healthy food is significantly more expensive. While eating healthy food might not be as expensive as if you ate fast food all the time, it is more expensive than the less healthy food at the grocery store, at least where I live.

Not only that, but I really don't have a lot of time to spend fixing food. I get half-hour lunch breaks (which include the walk to and from home for lunch). Yeah, I know about fixing meals in advance and all that, but I'm no chef, and making food isn't one of my favorite things to do, so the less time spent doing so the better for me. I've found plenty of healthy foods that I can have ready in just a few minutes, so its no loss for me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Amused

The myth that eating healthy is more expensive is just that, a myth.

It's more difficult and time consuming to prepare your own foods, but it is NOT more expensive. In fact, in many cases, it's cheaper.

My grocery bill is lower than if I ate out at fast food places all week. And I buy no junk food or munchies (I'm a body builder).

I'd like to live where you do, because here, healthy food is significantly more expensive. While eating healthy food might not be as expensive as if you ate fast food all the time, it is more expensive than the less healthy food at the grocery store, at least where I live.

Not only that, but I really don't have a lot of time to spend fixing food. I get half-hour lunch breaks (which include the walk to and from home for lunch). Yeah, I know about fixing meals in advance and all that, but I'm no chef, and making food isn't one of my favorite things to do, so the less time spent doing so the better for me. I've found plenty of healthy foods that I can have ready in just a few minutes, so its no loss for me.

Then you're paying for convenience, not health.

Raw meats, veggies and fruits are less expensive than fast junk foods for the same calorie diet.

The myth that healthy foods are more expensive is, in reality, a matter of laziness and sloth. People just don't want to prepare their own foods, and use the expensive myth as an excuse.

 

[fenrir]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Matt,
Just because you make a declarative statement doesn't mean it's true. It's my opinion that our activities AND our diets need to change.

Whether you like it or not, many Americans are eating multiple meals a week from fast food restaurants. Whether you like it or not, this food is prepared in an unhealthy manner. No, beef is not the devil. But the way it's prepared can be unhealthy.

If his documentary prompted McDonalds to offer healthy menu options, then the net effect is good. If his documentary prompted people to rethink their diet and hit the gym, then the net effect is good.

You seem to want to make this a political discussion, which means you're a sheep in your own special way.

I think you are responding to both Amused and myself.

People need to stop letting the media/people get away with twisting the truth and telling flat out lies. Yes, it is just a TV show or movie, but why should I accept it as harmless? If it is okay to lie and twist facts, then why do so many people harp on President Bush and WMD's? Something good came out of it because Iraq is no longer under the thumb of a dictator. That is getting too political though.

Matt

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Amused

No, it's not. It creates an unhealthy and unrealistic look at foods that are perfectly fine in moderation, and in many cases, a part of a very healthy diet. Beef is NOT the "devil."

Not only that, but it demonizes a perfectly innocent company. Something that seems to be in vogue these days, but is no less damaging than if someone labeled you a terrorist and damaged your ability to make a living.

Finally, it's not diets that need to change, but activities. We're eating the very same foods we ate for the last 40+ years. The only thing that has changed is our activities. The kicker is that sedentary lifestyles leads to over eating because what else is there to do while lying around? The #1 activity while watching a movie, TV, or surfing the web is... Munching.

We went through a low fat craze starting in the late 70s and throughout the 80s into the 90s. What did it get us? The largest increase in obesity in history.

Food and those who sell it are not the problem. It's like blaming guns for crime... but then, that's the leftist way. No one is responsible for their actions unless they are making money from it. Personal responsibility is totally and completely nullified.

Jesus - relax already. There's nothing "slanderous" about what he did and said in Super Size Me, even if it was hyperbolic. I'm a civil litigator, and I sure as hell wouldn't have taken McDonald's case if they'd wanted to pursue him for slander, since the film is so far removed from it. I suggest you do your research before you throw around language like that (ironically, what you're saying is closer to being libelous than anything in Super Size Me).

McDonald's is not a "perfectly innocent company," any more than Philip Morris is. I've never heard such dogged toadying to what it by any standard an amoral company whose products are demonstrably harmful to the public. I do not favor courts entertaining actions against McD's and other fast-food purveyors - to me this is a caveat emptor situation - but it's madness to deny they target children to sell them nutritionally-bankrupt "food" that is packed to the gills with sugar and fat.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Amused

No, it's not. It creates an unhealthy and unrealistic look at foods that are perfectly fine in moderation, and in many cases, a part of a very healthy diet. Beef is NOT the "devil."

Not only that, but it demonizes a perfectly innocent company. Something that seems to be in vogue these days, but is no less damaging than if someone labeled you a terrorist and damaged your ability to make a living.

Finally, it's not diets that need to change, but activities. We're eating the very same foods we ate for the last 40+ years. The only thing that has changed is our activities. The kicker is that sedentary lifestyles leads to over eating because what else is there to do while lying around? The #1 activity while watching a movie, TV, or surfing the web is... Munching.

We went through a low fat craze starting in the late 70s and throughout the 80s into the 90s. What did it get us? The largest increase in obesity in history.

Food and those who sell it are not the problem. It's like blaming guns for crime... but then, that's the leftist way. No one is responsible for their actions unless they are making money from it. Personal responsibility is totally and completely nullified.

Jesus - relax already. There's nothing "slanderous" about what he did and said in Super Size Me, even if it was hyperbolic. I'm a civil litigator, and I sure as hell wouldn't have taken McDonald's case if they'd wanted to pursue him for slander, since the film is so far removed from it. I suggest you do your research before you throw around language like that (ironically, what you're saying is closer to being libelous than anything in Super Size Me).

McDonald's is not a "perfectly innocent company," any more than Philip Morris is. I've never heard such dogged toadying to what it by any standard an amoral company whose products are demonstrably harmful to the public. I do not favor courts entertaining actions against McD's and other fast-food purveyors - to me this is a caveat emptor situation - but it's madness to deny they target children to sell them nutritionally-bankrupt "food" that is packed to the gills with sugar and fat.

McDonalds is selling a legal product that, taken in moderation by people NOT susceptible to heart disease IS perfectly healthy.

Again, Mcdonalds has been selling the same food for 50+ years. People have been cooking in lard and using sugar for all of recorded history.

And yet, the obesity epidemic started a mere 15-20 years ago. To blame food and those who sell it for obesity is like blaming guns for crime.

They have the legal right to market their product however they please in a country founded upon freedom of speech.

Yes, they ARE a perfectly innocent company. And yes, the movie is targeted directly at making their product look FAR more harmful that it is in even the worst case scenario.

And nothing I've said here is not admitted to in the movie itself. Spurlock admits to eating past the point of being full and to the point of feeling physically ill.

And yet, fools continue to believe his condition was caused by the food he ate, rather than the way he ate it.

The REAL shocker is thet he has doctors acting surprised by his condition. Either they are lying, or he did not tell them he was force feeding himself to the point of being ill on a nearly constant basis. ANY doctor knows what such actions will produce. Hell, any farmer knows what it will do.

 

[iamwiz82]

Was there not a person who recently re-enacted Supersize Me, but also worked out regularly and he ended up losing weight?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Was there not a person who recently re-enacted Supersize Me, but also worked out regularly and he ended up losing weight?

Not quite.

They ate at McDonald's every day for 60 days, but ate a more reasonable diet and did not gorge themselves.

They added exercise and lost 18 lbs.

Google the "McDonalds diet"

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Amused

The myth that eating healthy is more expensive is just that, a myth.

It's more difficult and time consuming to prepare your own foods, but it is NOT more expensive. In fact, in many cases, it's cheaper.

My grocery bill is lower than if I ate out at fast food places all week. And I buy no junk food or munchies (I'm a body builder).

I'd like to live where you do, because here, healthy food is significantly more expensive. While eating healthy food might not be as expensive as if you ate fast food all the time, it is more expensive than the less healthy food at the grocery store, at least where I live.

Not only that, but I really don't have a lot of time to spend fixing food. I get half-hour lunch breaks (which include the walk to and from home for lunch). Yeah, I know about fixing meals in advance and all that, but I'm no chef, and making food isn't one of my favorite things to do, so the less time spent doing so the better for me. I've found plenty of healthy foods that I can have ready in just a few minutes, so its no loss for me.

Then you're paying for convenience, not health.

Raw meats, veggies and fruits are less expensive than fast junk foods for the same calorie diet.

The myth that healthy foods are more expensive is, in reality, a matter of laziness and sloth. People just don't want to prepare their own foods, and use the expensive myth as an excuse.

Like I said, I wish I lived where you do, as junk food is much cheaper here. You can't just assume that everyone gets the same conditions you do. Some people really don't have time to do all that.

Also, just because you don't mind fixing a full meal often, doesn't mean that everyone is as good at doing that or likes to. Personally I'd rather find ways of getting a quick, but quite healthy meal and then spend time doing other things. This has never been a problem for me. In fact, the amount of time I spend preparing and eating meals when I'm eating healthy is less than when I'm eating unhealthily.

Another thing, you do realize that there is a large majority of Americans who don't have a lot of money. I know of lot of people who literally cannot afford to eat raw fruits and veggies unless they grew them themselves, which they don't have time to do because they work multiple jobs or long shifts. A lot of these same people are obese, yet they easily do 3-4 times the amount of work I do in a day.

Like I said, you can't expect that everyone has the same conditions as you.

The only real way to combat the obesity epidemic is to get people to eat better and get more active. For some people the activity part isn't the problem, they do need to eat better. Other people just need to become active as they don't eat that badly.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tangent1138

poor, poor Amused.
so lost and confused.


here's a cookie to make you feel better:

:roll:

Come back when you have a valid argument, not a cookie.

i had to run to a business lunch so i didn't have time to respond. sorry i made you sad.

the unfortunate reality is that you're confused. you constantly claim that they've been serving the same food since the 1950s. i wasn't alive in the 1950s, but i'm fairly certain they didn't "super size" orders in the 1950s. Also, and I'm not sure you realize this, in 1956 there were only 14 McDonalds restaurants... in the entire country. Kinda hard to have an impact on obsesity with only 14 restaurants. By comparison there are 31,000 McDonalds in the world today.

i think the real problem, the real cause of obsesity in this country is our culture of impatience. we want food right away. hence fast food, prepared in grease, deep fried, and super sized to larger portions. once and a while this is fine, but many in America are having this two or three times a week.

this impatience invades our exercise activities too. many Americans aren't exercising, and a lot of the ones that are have fallen for the claims of immediate results-- pills, 7 minute abs, ab rollers that don't do anything.


Listen, you can think what you want about Morgan Spurlock, but the real goal of any documentary filmmaker is not to enforce his world view but to create debate on a topic, to get people thinking about a problem in different ways... so he's already won.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tangent1138

poor, poor Amused.
so lost and confused.


here's a cookie to make you feel better:

:roll:

Come back when you have a valid argument, not a cookie.

i had to run to a business lunch so i didn't have time to respond. sorry i made you sad.

the unfortunate reality is that you're confused. you constantly claim that they've been serving the same food since the 1950s. i wasn't alive in the 1950s, but i'm fairly certain they didn't "super size" orders in the 1950s. Also, and I'm not sure you realize this, in 1956 there were only 14 McDonalds restaurants... in the entire country. Kinda hard to have an impact on obsesity with only 14 restaurants. By comparison there are 31,000 McDonalds in the world today.

i think the real problem, the real cause of obsesity in this country is our culture of impatience. we want food right away. hence fast food, prepared in grease, deep fried, and super sized to larger portions. once and a while this is fine, but many in America are having this two or three times a week.

this impatience invades our exercise activities too. many Americans aren't exercising, and a lot of the ones that are have fallen for the claims of immediate results-- pills, 7 minute abs, ab rollers that don't do anything.


Listen, you can think what you want about Morgan Spurlock, but the real goal of any documentary filmmaker is not to enforce his world view but to create debate on a topic, to get people thinking about a problem in different ways... so he's already won.

People eat until they are full. Few, if any ever went away from a table hungry now, or any time in the past. When portions were smaller, people would order more if still hungry. Today, they can throw away what is left when full.

The problem is not portions served. The problem is not fatty foods. The problem is not carbs. The problem is NOT FOOD OR THOSE WHO SELL IT.

People, in their homes, have cooked in lard and grease for centuries. It was the lowfat craze of the 70/80s that made this passé. Ask ANYONE over 50 how often their parents cooked using lard or grease and you would be shocked. Look at ANY cookbook from the early 70s and before. For most, it was used in just about every meal. Hell, people from the Depression would reuse bacon grease over and over again like Crisco, and cook nearly everything with it. Before the 70s there was no "low fat" anything. There were no "diet" foods.

Obesity correlates directly with the rise in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the internet. It also correlates with our move to a service oriented society, where even the lower middle classes pay others to wash their cars, clean their homes and care for their yards.

And curiously enough, it roughly correlates with the start of the diet and lowfat obsession in the late 70s.

Spurlock is just another anti-corporate propagandist who accomplishes their goals by misinformation.

The fact that you think such obviously misleading and slanderous material is OK and serves a purpose only shows the general lack of character that seems to have developed as of late among too many on our society.

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Anyone recorded... torrent????

i didnt get a chance to see it last night.

 

[rocadelpunk]

nickel and dimed was a decent book about surviving with minimum wage.

 

[BooGiMaN]

i think the show is stupid...if you really want to see the problems someone on minumum wage have, do it for 3 months..6 months..but 30 days come on.....


besides they splurged on her birthday and other stuff when they knew they shouldnt have....because they knew they only have a few days to go

since when do people on minimum wage have the knowledge/hope that in 30 days they go back to having surplus money...

30 days is like those weekend warriors that say they have experienced what its liek to live in another persons shoes...umm yeah right

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Amused
After his outright fraud with Supersize Me, I have no interest in watching anything else from this Micheal Moore propaganda wannabe.

Force feeding oneself to the point of illness, then blaming it on the food is simply the most slanderous thing I've seen of late. He did to himself exactly what farmers do to geese to enlarge their livers to make Foie Gras. He force fed himself 3-5 times his normal calorie intake. He ate past the point of being full or "stuffed." He ate past the point of being physically ill.

You can have the same effect with ANY food. In fact, geese are force fed grain to fatten their livers.

To do this with one restaurant's food and blame them for the ill effects is slander.

If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Muadib
You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

so the regulars were eating far more calories than they were accustomed to, every day?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused People have been cooking in lard and using sugar for all of recorded history.

actually, sugar was a luxury item for most of recorded history. in fact, it was so expensive that not even the kings of england prior to henry xiii could afford it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Just caught the episode where he's living on minimum wage for 30 days. There wasn't anything spectacular about the experiment--of course its going to be harder to pay for stuff when you're broke, and you won't have any savings. Wasn't surprised he went in depth on the issue of paying for health care.

What was surprising was the amount of stress it puts on a relationship (his fiance Alex was also participating.) Makes me wonder how many divorces in this country are over money issues (I bet its a bigger homewrecker than having an affair.)

bankruptcy is the number 1 indicator of divorce. or was that the other way around?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: Amused
After his outright fraud with Supersize Me, I have no interest in watching anything else from this Micheal Moore propaganda wannabe.

Force feeding oneself to the point of illness, then blaming it on the food is simply the most slanderous thing I've seen of late. He did to himself exactly what farmers do to geese to enlarge their livers to make Foie Gras. He force fed himself 3-5 times his normal calorie intake. He ate past the point of being full or "stuffed." He ate past the point of being physically ill.

You can have the same effect with ANY food. In fact, geese are force fed grain to fatten their livers.

To do this with one restaurant's food and blame them for the ill effects is slander.

If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

I OWN a number of sandwich shops. Oh yeah... sure... I've never worked in a fast food store. :roll:

Even obese people don't force feed themselves until they are physically ill. The ill health effects he suffered were NOT from McDonald's food, but from FORCE FEEDING himself.

It could be done WITH ANY FOOD.

They are the SAME effects a goose has when force feed GRAIN to enlarge their livers for Foie Gras.

And anyone can eat in McDonalds, or any other fast food restaurant 3 times a day without doing what he did. He FORCED himself to eat even when not hungry. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of full. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of feeling physically ill. Not even obese people do this.

Force feeding has immediate and serious health consequences. Hell, we've been doing it to geese for centuries to produce these very effects.

There was NO point to miss, other than misinformation and slander on the part of Spurlock. His movie has been debunked by many who have improved their health and lost weight eating nothing but McDonald's food with "The McDonald's Diet." Google it.

The fact that I pointed all of these facts out in the post you responded to, yet you completely ignored them is the ONLY reason I'm repeating them.

I have far more of a clue than you, obviously.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Amused


People eat until they are full. Few, if any ever went away from a table hungry now, or any time in the past. When portions were smaller, people would order more if still hungry. Today, they can throw away what is left when full.

The problem is not portions served. The problem is not fatty foods. The problem is not carbs. The problem is NOT FOOD OR THOSE WHO SELL IT.

People, in their homes, have cooked in lard and grease for centuries. It was the lowfat craze of the 70/80s that made this passé. Ask ANYONE over 50 how often their parents cooked using lard or grease and you would be shocked. Look at ANY cookbook from the early 70s and before. For most, it was used in just about every meal. Hell, people from the Depression would reuse bacon grease over and over again like Crisco, and cook nearly everything with it. Before the 70s there was no "low fat" anything. There were no "diet" foods.

Obesity correlates directly with the rise in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the internet. It also correlates with our move to a service oriented society, where even the lower middle classes pay others to wash their cars, clean their homes and care for their yards.

And curiously enough, it roughly correlates with the start of the diet and lowfat obsession in the late 70s.

Spurlock is just another anti-corporate propagandist who accomplishes their goals by misinformation.

The fact that you think such obviously misleading and slanderous material is OK and serves a purpose only shows the general lack of character that seems to have developed as of late among too many on our society.

Amused, putting things in caps doesn't make them true. Yes, people eat until they're are full. The problem is caloric density.

Times Online on the subject:

"The average energy density of these restaurants? meals was 1,100 kilojoules (263 calories) per 100 grams (4oz), 65 per cent more than the density of the average British diet and more than twice that of a recommended healthy diet. This means that a person eating a Big Mac and fries would consume almost twice as many calories as someone eating the same weight of pasta and salad.

Professor Prentice said that the human appetite encouraged people to eat a similar bulk of food, regardless of its calorific value. This left regular consumers of fast food prone to ?accidental? obesity, in which they grew fat while eating portions they did not consider large."

Amused, I'm disappointed in you. When someone disagrees with you so you criticize their character?

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Muadib
You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

so the regulars were eating far more calories than they were accustomed to, every day?

No, I'm not saying that. I've saying that they were taking in some serious calories.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: Amused
After his outright fraud with Supersize Me, I have no interest in watching anything else from this Micheal Moore propaganda wannabe.

Force feeding oneself to the point of illness, then blaming it on the food is simply the most slanderous thing I've seen of late. He did to himself exactly what farmers do to geese to enlarge their livers to make Foie Gras. He force fed himself 3-5 times his normal calorie intake. He ate past the point of being full or "stuffed." He ate past the point of being physically ill.

You can have the same effect with ANY food. In fact, geese are force fed grain to fatten their livers.

To do this with one restaurant's food and blame them for the ill effects is slander.

If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

I OWN a number of sandwich shops. Oh yeah... sure... I've never worked in a fast food store. :roll:

Even obese people don't force feed themselves until they are physically ill. The ill health effects he suffered were NOT from McDonald's food, but from FORCE FEEDING himself.

It could be done WITH ANY FOOD.

They are the SAME effects a goose has when force feed GRAIN to enlarge their livers for Foie Gras.

And anyone can eat in McDonalds, or any other fast food restaurant 3 times a day without doing what he did. He FORCED himself to eat even when not hungry. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of full. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of feeling physically ill. Not even obese people do this.

Force feeding has immediate and serious health consequences. Hell, we've been doing it to geese for centuries to produce these very effects.

There was NO point to miss, other than misinformation and slander on the part of Spurlock. His movie has been debunked by many who have improved their health and lost weight eating nothing but McDonald's food with "The McDonald's Diet." Google it.

The fact that I pointed all of these facts out in the post you responded to, yet you completely ignored them is the ONLY reason I'm repeating them.

I have far more of a clue than you, obviously.

He didn't force himself every meal like you make it sound. Sure their were meals that he had to force down, he was sick of the food!!! Heck, eat the food you sell for two to four weeks and see if you don't get sick of it.
I'm gonna google the The McDonald's Diet now.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: Amused
After his outright fraud with Supersize Me, I have no interest in watching anything else from this Micheal Moore propaganda wannabe.

Force feeding oneself to the point of illness, then blaming it on the food is simply the most slanderous thing I've seen of late. He did to himself exactly what farmers do to geese to enlarge their livers to make Foie Gras. He force fed himself 3-5 times his normal calorie intake. He ate past the point of being full or "stuffed." He ate past the point of being physically ill.

You can have the same effect with ANY food. In fact, geese are force fed grain to fatten their livers.

To do this with one restaurant's food and blame them for the ill effects is slander.

If the man is willing to mislead people this much, why on Earth would I listen to anything else he has to say?

You missed the whole point of the movie. Of course he went past the point of being full. He was in decent shape before the start of his project, and not accustomed to intaking so many calories in a day. That's the whole point of the film, to see what would happen!!!! Your problem is that you think such a thing is absurd. Clearly you've never worked in fast food. I did way back when I was in school. You would be amazed at the number of "regulars" that you'd see 2-3 times a day. Super size was brilliant!!! You just have no clue.

I OWN a number of sandwich shops. Oh yeah... sure... I've never worked in a fast food store. :roll:

Even obese people don't force feed themselves until they are physically ill. The ill health effects he suffered were NOT from McDonald's food, but from FORCE FEEDING himself.

It could be done WITH ANY FOOD.

They are the SAME effects a goose has when force feed GRAIN to enlarge their livers for Foie Gras.

And anyone can eat in McDonalds, or any other fast food restaurant 3 times a day without doing what he did. He FORCED himself to eat even when not hungry. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of full. He FORCED himself to eat past the point of feeling physically ill. Not even obese people do this.

Force feeding has immediate and serious health consequences. Hell, we've been doing it to geese for centuries to produce these very effects.

There was NO point to miss, other than misinformation and slander on the part of Spurlock. His movie has been debunked by many who have improved their health and lost weight eating nothing but McDonald's food with "The McDonald's Diet." Google it.

The fact that I pointed all of these facts out in the post you responded to, yet you completely ignored them is the ONLY reason I'm repeating them.

I have far more of a clue than you, obviously.

Do you want to argue about the health differences eating a sensible diet versus eating the same caloric intake at mcdonalds? Any moron can tell that yes he was eating a lot of calories, THAT IS NO SECRET, if you watched the movie he BLATENTLY said how many calories he was eating, its not like you have uncovered anything.

He ate more food because when you eat at mcdonalds most of the calories are GARBAGE, I am figuring your body tells you to eat a lot to get some nutritional value out of it. I bet if you ate the same amount of calories of vegetables/choice meat/nuts it would fill you up much more than Mc D's fries and burgers and sodas.

Anyway, the point I took away from that movie is what everybody already knows, MC' Ds and most other fast food does not have much nutritional value and Many people all around the world eat way too much of it, you want to argue against that simple point?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused


People eat until they are full. Few, if any ever went away from a table hungry now, or any time in the past. When portions were smaller, people would order more if still hungry. Today, they can throw away what is left when full.

The problem is not portions served. The problem is not fatty foods. The problem is not carbs. The problem is NOT FOOD OR THOSE WHO SELL IT.

People, in their homes, have cooked in lard and grease for centuries. It was the lowfat craze of the 70/80s that made this passé. Ask ANYONE over 50 how often their parents cooked using lard or grease and you would be shocked. Look at ANY cookbook from the early 70s and before. For most, it was used in just about every meal. Hell, people from the Depression would reuse bacon grease over and over again like Crisco, and cook nearly everything with it. Before the 70s there was no "low fat" anything. There were no "diet" foods.

Obesity correlates directly with the rise in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, and the internet. It also correlates with our move to a service oriented society, where even the lower middle classes pay others to wash their cars, clean their homes and care for their yards.

And curiously enough, it roughly correlates with the start of the diet and lowfat obsession in the late 70s.

Spurlock is just another anti-corporate propagandist who accomplishes their goals by misinformation.

The fact that you think such obviously misleading and slanderous material is OK and serves a purpose only shows the general lack of character that seems to have developed as of late among too many on our society.

Amused, putting things in caps doesn't make them true. Yes, people eat until they're are full. The problem is caloric density.

Times Online on the subject:

"The average energy density of these restaurants? meals was 1,100 kilojoules (263 calories) per 100 grams (4oz), 65 per cent more than the density of the average British diet and more than twice that of a recommended healthy diet. This means that a person eating a Big Mac and fries would consume almost twice as many calories as someone eating the same weight of pasta and salad.

Professor Prentice said that the human appetite encouraged people to eat a similar bulk of food, regardless of its calorific value. This left regular consumers of fast food prone to ?accidental? obesity, in which they grew fat while eating portions they did not consider large."

Amused, I'm disappointed in you. When someone disagrees with you so you criticize their character?

And, yet again, people in the US have been eating beef, and cooking in lard for the past century at least. The obesity epidemic is a mere 15 years old.

Home cooking has no portion control. People cook enough to fill up, usually a little more... which is why "left overs" is such a normal part of home cooking. For hundreds of years parents have been telling kids to clean their plate before leaving the table.

Fast food has been around for 50 years. Lard and beef for hundreds.

There is NO correlation between the consumption of fatty foods and the obesity epidemic. In fact, there is an adverse correlation, as the low fat craze started just before the obesity epidemic started. We actually eat LESS fat per capita now than we did just 30 years ago when nearly everything was cooked in lard and there were no "low fat" foods or diets.

Anyone who would approve of using misinformation and misleading propaganda to shape opinion and change behavior is seriously lacking in character. If you're disappointed in my demanding honesty, well...