'30 Days' with Morgan Spurlock

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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?

Utter crap. Not even the obese force themselves to eat past the point of feeling physically ill. Force feeding and over-eating are two entirely different things.

The results he gained from his farce could be done with ANY FOOD. It is done to geese with GRAIN.

And, yet again, the McDonald's Diet (google it) proves you wrong. People all over the country have lost weight, and lowered their cholesterol eating nothing but McDonald's food.

Blaming food and those who sell it for obesity is nothing but simple minded scapegoating. No one makes you fat but you (and possibly your genetics).

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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?

Blaming food and those who sell it for obesity is nothing but simple minded scapegoating. No one makes you fat but you (and possibly your genetics).

you seriously think the crap on mc donalds menu is fine? just as good as eating anything else? I don't blame the food or the people who sell it, I blame people for eating it so much when they know it is unhealthy. are you going to claim that eating 2500 calories of soda is just as good as 2500 calories of vegetables? and that two twins who ate that diet for a year would be the same after the year was up? that is what you are implying, and it is gravely FALSE. genetics play a very small part in all of this.

 

[TheShiz]

oh yeah, go read a book called "fast food nation" if you want something more interesting than Super Size me.

 

[Muadib]

I googled, but all I come up with that might refute Spurlock is some woman who only ate from the dollar menu, and she exercised. I will say that I didn't look past the first page though. The people Spurlock did this for don't exercise, and you know it!!! As for the obese not gorging themselves,PLEASE!!!:disgust: I suspect that the whole topic hit a little too close to home for you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Muadib
I googled, but all I come up with that might refute Spurlock is some woman who only ate from the dollar menu, and she exercised. I will say that I didn't look past the first page though. The people Spurlock did this for don't exercise, and you know it!!! As for the obese not gorging themselves,PLEASE!!!:disgust: I suspect that the whole topic hit a little too close to home for you.

And there you have it. Moderation and exercise makes McDonald's a good food. What a concept!

The people who don't eat McDonald's and are fat don't exercise either. Are you going to blame McDonald's for their obesity too?

And the Obese do NOT eat to the point of feeling physically ill. They may eat until "full" or "stuffed." but they stop when no longer hungry.

If obesity were caused by gorging, we'd have not an obesity epidemic, but an epidemic of liver failures all over the country. Force feeding has very specific ill health effects that have nothing to do with simply over-eating and not exercising. One of those is an enlarged and damaged liver. Something Spurlock focused on, and blamed McDonald's food for.

You say this hits close to home?

How so?

I own Sandwich shops that are in direct competition with McDonald's. If anything, I'd want to hurt them.

I'm a body builder and in excellent shape. (And I even eat burgers and other beef quite often.)

Please explain how you think "this topic hit a little too close to home" for me?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
oh yeah, go read a book called "fast food nation" if you want something more interesting than Super Size me.

I have a better idea...

Read this and save your time, and a few IQ points:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157

 

[Excelsior]

Dude..Amused..I totally agree with you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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?

Blaming food and those who sell it for obesity is nothing but simple minded scapegoating. No one makes you fat but you (and possibly your genetics).

you seriously think the crap on mc donalds menu is fine? just as good as eating anything else? I don't blame the food or the people who sell it, I blame people for eating it so much when they know it is unhealthy. are you going to claim that eating 2500 calories of soda is just as good as 2500 calories of vegetables? and that two twins who ate that diet for a year would be the same after the year was up? that is what you are implying, and it is gravely FALSE. genetics play a very small part in all of this.

WTF are you talking about?

You don't HAVE to drink soda when you eat at McDonalds. Or, at the very least, you can drink diet.

You don't HAVE to supersize your meal. You don't HAVE to have a burger and fries for every meal. McDoland's sells fruit, fish, chicken and salads.

Spurlock's diet resembled nothing I've ever seen a normal person eat. No one I know eats to, and past the point of physical illness. The only animals this happens to are geese being force feed to make Foie Gras.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

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.

spot on. Today's food is more enhanced with chemicals and other additives. The protions are GREATLY increased than 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago. When the Big Mac was introduced, people were in awe of it's size...it was almost a novelty (like the giant burgers places sell today). Now a Big Mac is just another average lunch...plus fries and a Coke.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

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.

The average Subway customer you see is a rather different client than McDonalds serves...

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 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...

misindformation and propoganda? That's all your post here is unless you have some sources to back up your claims. They seem a stretch of reality to me, so I'm dying to see proof...

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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?

Blaming food and those who sell it for obesity is nothing but simple minded scapegoating. No one makes you fat but you (and possibly your genetics).

you seriously think the crap on mc donalds menu is fine? just as good as eating anything else? I don't blame the food or the people who sell it, I blame people for eating it so much when they know it is unhealthy. are you going to claim that eating 2500 calories of soda is just as good as 2500 calories of vegetables? and that two twins who ate that diet for a year would be the same after the year was up? that is what you are implying, and it is gravely FALSE. genetics play a very small part in all of this.

WTF are you talking about?

You don't HAVE to drink soda when you eat at McDonalds. Or, at the very least, you can drink diet.

You don't HAVE to supersize your meal. You don't HAVE to have a burger and fries for every meal. McDoland's sells fruit, fish, chicken and salads.

Spurlock's diet resembled nothing I've ever seen a normal person eat. No one I know eats to, and past the point of physical illness. The only animals this happens to are geese being force feed to make Foie Gras.

have you even SEEN the movie? You constantly refer to himself gorging himself to the point of illness. I don't recall him EVER ordering beyond what the average customer might order. He never ordered 3 or 4 sandwiches...he ordered a value meal, and when asked, would supersize it. If I recall he occasionally had an apple pie. He also tried everything on the menu at least once.

Where is the evidence he was eating to excess (beyond the average "meal" McDonalds sells)???

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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?

Blaming food and those who sell it for obesity is nothing but simple minded scapegoating. No one makes you fat but you (and possibly your genetics).

you seriously think the crap on mc donalds menu is fine? just as good as eating anything else? I don't blame the food or the people who sell it, I blame people for eating it so much when they know it is unhealthy. are you going to claim that eating 2500 calories of soda is just as good as 2500 calories of vegetables? and that two twins who ate that diet for a year would be the same after the year was up? that is what you are implying, and it is gravely FALSE. genetics play a very small part in all of this.

WTF are you talking about?

You don't HAVE to drink soda when you eat at McDonalds. Or, at the very least, you can drink diet.

You don't HAVE to supersize your meal. You don't HAVE to have a burger and fries for every meal. McDoland's sells fruit, fish, chicken and salads.

Spurlock's diet resembled nothing I've ever seen a normal person eat. No one I know eats to, and past the point of physical illness. The only animals this happens to are geese being force feed to make Foie Gras.

have you even SEEN the movie? You constantly refer to himself gorging himself to the point of illness. I don't recall him EVER ordering beyond what the average customer might order. He never ordered 3 or 4 sandwiches...he ordered a value meal, and when asked, would supersize it. If I recall he occasionally had an apple pie. He also tried everything on the menu at least once.

Where is the evidence he was eating to excess (beyond the average "meal" McDonalds sells)???

He ate, on average, 3-5 times his normal calorie intake. He often complained of feeling physically ill, and stuffed, and yet he continued eating beyond that point.

His physical symptoms were NOT from the types of food he ate, but from gorging himself. He had the SAME EXACT SYMPTOMS a goose would have when force fed grain as Foie Gras producers do.

Over weight people do NOT suffer from the types of symptoms he had. They do not damage their livers in just 30 days. To do that requires gorging.

Again, the results he had could be achived with ANY type of food or diet, so long as a MASSIVE amount of calories over and above one's normal daily intake are eaten.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 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...

misindformation and propoganda? That's all your post here is unless you have some sources to back up your claims. They seem a stretch of reality to me, so I'm dying to see proof...

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
What channel is this on?

FX (which totally destroys the myth that the Fox networks are right wing).

I'll take your "30 Days" and raise you a "24", plus the entirety of Fox News.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
What channel is this on?

FX (which totally destroys the myth that the Fox networks are right wing).

I'll take your "30 Days" and raise you a "24", plus the entirety of Fox News.

I'll give you ALL the programming on Fox and FX besides 24 (which is hardly conservative).

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Amused

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

Sorry to disappoint you, Amused, but the scientific method doesn't include a section on "it must be true because I was alive".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

Sorry to disappoint you, Amused, but the scientific method doesn't include a section on "it must be true because I was alive".

Neither does being obtuse simply to argue with the obvious.

I see no reason to provide references to very obvious recent history just because someone is too young to remember them.

Disbelieve me? Prove me wrong. I'm not going to research what I know to be true because I lived through it. Ask any person over 40-50 years old.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

Sorry to disappoint you, Amused, but the scientific method doesn't include a section on "it must be true because I was alive".

Neither does being obtuse simply to argue with the obvious.

I see no reason to provide references to very obvious recent history just because someone is too young to remember them.

Disbelieve me? Prove me wrong. I'm not going to research what I know to be true because I lived through it. Ask any person over 40-50 years old.

I've already quoted credible evidence, Amused. You've placed things in caps and muttered about how you were alive.

It's quite simple: a balanced diet + exercise > a fast food diet + exercise

Of course, I don't need to resort to childish insults to get my point across.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: Amused

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

Sorry to disappoint you, Amused, but the scientific method doesn't include a section on "it must be true because I was alive".

Neither does being obtuse simply to argue with the obvious.

I see no reason to provide references to very obvious recent history just because someone is too young to remember them.

Disbelieve me? Prove me wrong. I'm not going to research what I know to be true because I lived through it. Ask any person over 40-50 years old.

I've already quoted credible evidence, Amused. You've placed things in caps and muttered about how you were alive.

It's quite simple: a balanced diet + exercise > a fast food diet + exercise

Of course, I don't need to resort to childish insults to get my point across.

A fast food diet can be easily balanced. Another part of Spurlock's deception.

And our idea of a balanced diet today is VASTLY different than it was just a few decades ago. The foods available at fast food stores have been available for 50 years, and cooked at home for centuries. Yet obesity is newly epidemic. Why is that?

Because our lifestyles are vastly different. Food has remained largely unchanged, while our lives have become, for the most part, sedentary.

And obtuse was not an insult, it was an observation. Stop being intentionally obtuse and questioning the obvious and I wont call you that.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Sorry to disappoint you, Amused, but the scientific method doesn't include a section on "it must be true because I was alive".

He was stating he observed the phenomena, which is indeed part of the "scientific method."

Anyhow, I found the show entertaining but some of the sappy hippy stuff got pretty old. I found it good entertainment, hardly some serious documentary.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 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...

misindformation and propoganda? That's all your post here is unless you have some sources to back up your claims. They seem a stretch of reality to me, so I'm dying to see proof...

Which claims are you not believing?

That people have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries? WTF, do you think cows and their fat are some new discovery?

The historical diet claims? I KNOW. I LIVED in the 70s. My parents were raised during the depression. Look at ANY mainstream cookbook published and sold before the mid 70s. There were NO "lowfat" or "light" foods sold prior to the lowfat craze that started in the late 70s, and got their legs in the early 80s. I KNOW. I was THERE. Diet drinks started in the late 70s. The first, and ONLY diet drink on the market was TaB. It was introduced in 1963 and sold poorly for most of that decade until the 70s when the diet fad started, and other diet drinks started showing up.

Are you in disbelief over fast food being around and the same types of food for 50 years? Google McDonalds history.

The lack of portion control in home cooking? How come most people have, today, and in the past, some amount of leftovers at most home cooked meals?

Asking me to back up the obvious is rather obtuse.

The specific claim I was addressing was your statement that people eat less fat per capita than we did 30 years ago.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

The specific claim I was addressing was your statement that people eat less fat per capita than we did 30 years ago.

Again, there were no "lowfat" foods before the 70s. No "light" foods and only one or two diet drinks. Crisco and other lards were used to cook just about everything and people still reused bacon grease. Ground beef was just that, no one marketed different grand beef based on fat content. The government and medical warnings on fats were unheard of. The vast majority still used whole milk.

Fat consumption dropped considerably with the advent of the lowfat craze and a whole host of lowfat fad diets that started in the late 70s and really hit their stride in the 80s. Fat became the devil. ALL fat, as no one was told the difference between good fats and bad.

The marketplace is STILL loaded with lowfat products, and they often outsell their full-fat counterparts. Although the latest "low-carb" craze has obviously mitigated that some, I'm sure.

And yet, as fat consumption went down, the obesity epidemic started.

 

[tami]

Amused, while i may be inclined to agree with what you say, i think that in supersize me, spurlock made a point to "live like an american" in today's society -- except to the excess of eating mcdonald's. you mention that one needs to be more active. this is true. in today's day and age, however, obesity and health problems stem from a combination of a diet and lack of activities.

i know that spurlock is pointing a finger at the mcdonalds chain (and other fast food chains). you'd be surprised to know that this isn't a recent phenomenon; i have a book sitting on my shelf from college regarding how society has changed so drastically in the last few decades due to "the mcdonaldization of society." movies, however, get their point across more quickly than something i'd be forced to read for my sociology class -- and that's probably one reason why he did it.

but the point being, which spurlock did not particularly address, is that food -- any food -- is acceptable in moderation (or even more infrequently for the more unhealthier types). his movie, i believe, was intended to take it to the extreme. moderate eaters may have seen his movie as an insult -- heck, maybe they even got insight into their eating habits from it. i think his primary point was trying to show that it's truly unhealthy to live your life around mcdonalds, but who does that anyway?

so yes, in a sense, it's all a lie if you consider that a normal healthy diet with occasional mcd's is acceptable. however, he illustrated an extreme case, which one can view as lies. but looking at the picture he painted, it's really not so much a lie after all -- only in his extreme case.

 

[0roo0roo]

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

not entirely. its a bit fuzzy. its either in the book fatland or fastfood nation. studies show that children will eat as much as you put on their plate and be done with it. a percieved serving size is fluid. and over the decades there has been a trend to continuously upgrade the size of food servings all over. just look at the 6? oz coke of the early mcdonalds. the people back then weren't tiny or something u know

one fun story in the book was about how a theater owner figured out how to sell more pop corn back in the day. he couldn't sell patrons 2 regular popcorns as they would feel gluttonous and embarrassed. but if he made a bigger popcorn container, suddenly it was ok. now we have giant tub of popcorn same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, supersize me was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck