'30 Days' with Morgan Spurlock

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: 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.

Again, McDonalds and the diet it represents has been around FAR longer than the obesity epidemic. McDonalds started in the 50s. People have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries. The obesity epidemic started in the 80s and got it's legs in the 90s.

The only signifigant change the obesity epidemic directly correlates with is the rise in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, the internet and the turn to a service based society where even the lower middle classes now have their yards cared for, their cars washed and their homes cleaned. Combine this with a move towards desk jobs for all, and far fewer physically demanding jobs, and you have a HUGE change in lifestyles that DIRECTLY correlates with the rise in obesity.

And, as I pointed out before, there is one thing people like to do when sitting or laying around: Munch.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

I answered one biased book with an oppositely biased commentary on it.

So?

Is the Wall Street Journal biased as well when they flat out called the author of Fast Food Nation a liar?

I guess so, huh?

If you intentionally lie to further your cause, you lack charactor. No amount of chest beating or rationalizing is going to change that. It's why "propaganda" is a dirty word.
 
Nov 5, 2001
18,366
3
0
Originally posted by: 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.


so your "statistic" was a blatant fabrication with absolutely NO prrof to substantiate the claim....
 
Nov 5, 2001
18,366
3
0
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

owned.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
?Calories consumed in this average American diet continue to rise,
averaging 1949 in 1994 versus 1839 in 1990 (this is why Americans
continue to gain weight)?

?Although the percent of fat is lower, the total amount of fat
consumed per day is greater because the total calories are higher.?

?Americans consumed 73 grams of fat per day in 1994 versus 72 grams of
fat in 1990.?
Source: ChiroWeb
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/15/09/10.html

The following link is a document titled:

"U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends:
More Calories, Refined Carbohydrates,
and Fats"

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/sep1999/frsept99a.pdf
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
?Calories consumed in this average American diet continue to rise,
averaging 1949 in 1994 versus 1839 in 1990 (this is why Americans
continue to gain weight)?

?Although the percent of fat is lower, the total amount of fat
consumed per day is greater because the total calories are higher.?

?Americans consumed 73 grams of fat per day in 1994 versus 72 grams of
fat in 1990.?
Source: ChiroWeb
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/15/09/10.html

The following link is a document titled:

"U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends:
More Calories, Refined Carbohydrates,
and Fats"

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/sep1999/frsept99a.pdf

i don't think taking two very recent years that are both after the low fat craze hit refutes amused's claim that people were eating more fat a century ago.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
?Americans consumed 73 grams of fat per day in 1994 versus 72 grams of
fat in 1990.?

Ummm how exactly is that bad for you? The avg male requires 2000 calories a day to sustain themselves. The avg 2000 calorie diet has a recommended fat intake of 65g.

Fat isnt bad for you. Everyone should be eating 20%-30% of their calories in the form of fat.

Its hydrogenated fats and trans fats that are bad. Saturated fats too if you go overboard.

I personally have about ~110g of fat per day, 40/40/20.

Its not the food people. Its the people, people. People these days are lazy cows. Its not that difficult to find 30 minutes a day to excercise. And excercise is not going from the couch to the fridge for another soda.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't think taking two very recent years that are both after the low fat craze hit refutes amused's claim that people were eating more fat a century ago.

I'm not trying to refute or prove anything, just provide information. The quote was recent years, but the documents linked contain much older data. The pdf in particular contains information from 1971 to current and is quite detailed on the calories consumed and where they come from. (Although I don't particularly agree with how the FDA calculated per captia consumtion figures)

For example:

A big jump in average calorie
intake between 1985 and 2000
without a corresponding increase
in the level of physical activity
(calorie expenditure) is the prime
factor behind America?s soaring
rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.
ERS?s loss-adjusted annual
per capita food supply series (adjusted
for spoilage, cooking losses,
plate waste, and other food losses
accumulated throughout the marketing
system and the home) suggests
that average daily calorie
consumption in 2000 was 12 percent,
or roughly 300 calories, above
the 1985 level (fig. 1). Of that 300-
calorie increase, grains (mainly refined
grains) accounted for 46 percent;
added fats, 24 percent; added
sugars, 23 percent; fruits and vegetables,
8 percent; and the meat and dairy groups
together, declined by 1 percent.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: rahvin
?Calories consumed in this average American diet continue to rise,
averaging 1949 in 1994 versus 1839 in 1990 (this is why Americans
continue to gain weight)?

?Although the percent of fat is lower, the total amount of fat
consumed per day is greater because the total calories are higher.?

?Americans consumed 73 grams of fat per day in 1994 versus 72 grams of
fat in 1990.?
Source: ChiroWeb
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/15/09/10.html

The following link is a document titled:

"U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends:
More Calories, Refined Carbohydrates,
and Fats"

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/sep1999/frsept99a.pdf

i don't think taking two very recent years that are both after the low fat craze hit refutes amused's claim that people were eating more fat a century ago.

Exactly. The lowfat craze started in the mid-late 70s and really took off in the 80s.

Compairing numbers from 2 years in the 90s is pointless and does nothing to disprove my claim.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

owned.

:roll:

Hardly. Look up "poisoniong the wells" and learn why it can't be an "owned" in a debate.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: 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.


so your "statistic" was a blatant fabrication with absolutely NO prrof to substantiate the claim....

No, my claim is one of experience and knowledge.

Prove me wrong.
 

falias

Golden Member
May 13, 2001
1,262
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

owned.

:roll:

Hardly. Look up "poisoniong the wells" and learn why it can't be an "owned" in a debate.


Denial is bad for you. :thumbsup:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: falias
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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:p same with drive throughs. allows for secret gluttony.


but yea, fast food nation was a stunt. force fed himself like a foie gras duck:p

In your last line, I think you meant the movie "Supersize Me" not the book "Fast Food Nation." :p

But yeah, What Spurlock did could be done with ANY FOOD. Too bad people who can't think for themselves refuse to see that.

At any rate, the book Fast Food Nation is a sham. So riddled with misinformation that none of it can be trusted to use as a reference. The Wall Street Journal described the book as a "cavalier manipulation of data."

Here's a good look at it:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=157



Your source is the Center for Consumer Freedom? The Center for Consumer Freedom was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, and restaurant chains. I wonder if they could be biased? Of course, you're too obtuse to realize that. ;)

What a wonderful world you live in that anyone who disagrees with you must not have character or must not be able to think for themselves. I guess that makes it easy to feel like you're correct.

oh well. good luck.

owned.

:roll:

Hardly. Look up "poisoniong the wells" and learn why it can't be an "owned" in a debate.


Denial is bad for you. :thumbsup:

What denial?

An obviously biased book that the Wall Street Journal called a pack of lies is FACTUALLY refuted by a consumer group with ties to the food industry.

And I'm "owned?" Nope. Not by a long shot.

The only "owned" people are those who read the book and fell for the bullsh!t.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Exactly. The lowfat craze started in the mid-late 70s and really took off in the 80s.

Compairing numbers from 2 years in the 90s is pointless and does nothing to disprove my claim.

Well ok, if everyone it just going to ignore my links lets provide a quote using the years you are talking about:

In contrast, between 1985 and
1999, per capita consumption of
total dietary fat remained steady,
even declining slightly in some intervening
years.Moreover, fat?s
share of total calories declined between
1985 and 1999, as total calorie
consumption increased. Meanwhile,
per capita consumption of
total carbohydrate and protein
jumped 21 percent and 12 percent
between 1985 and 1999.

Using the document the following data can be extracted from Table 2:

Pounds of Fat and oils consumed per capita per anum (includes salid and cooking oils, shortening, margarine, butter, lard, beef tallow and other edible fats and oils including those in dairy).

1970-74 = 55.7
1975-79 = 57.4
1980-84 = 61.7
1985-89 = 66.1
1990-94 = 69.1
1995-99 = 67.5
2000 = 77.1

So according to the FDA study, Total Fat consumption on a per captia annual basis has been steadily increasing since the early 1970's (the limit of the data in the report, note that there was a very slight drop in the late 90's). This is contrary to what you claimed.
 

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,588
3
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 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.

Again, McDonalds and the diet it represents has been around FAR longer than the obesity epidemic. McDonalds started in the 50s. People have been eating beef and cooking in lard for centuries. The obesity epidemic started in the 80s and got it's legs in the 90s.

The only signifigant change the obesity epidemic directly correlates with is the rise in popularity of cable/sat TV, video games, the internet and the turn to a service based society where even the lower middle classes now have their yards cared for, their cars washed and their homes cleaned. Combine this with a move towards desk jobs for all, and far fewer physically demanding jobs, and you have a HUGE change in lifestyles that DIRECTLY correlates with the rise in obesity.

And, as I pointed out before, there is one thing people like to do when sitting or laying around: Munch.

yes, you are right. however, family dinners -- where the mother or father cooks -- are not as frequent when it's easier and more affordable to go to mcd's to pick up dinner. when such behavior occurs frequently, you can run into serious health problems.

i see and agree with what you're saying regarding the fact that today's technology is contributing to what i'd best describe as laziness. people refuse to go outside because there is television, video games, the internet, etc. that combined with a "fast food" diet is a recipe for obesity itself. however, that said, this technology i speak of has changed the way fast food chains operate and has also been a catalyst for obesity.

you can continue to blame the person, but there's no doubt that it's not just the person but the diet as well.
 
Nov 5, 2001
18,366
3
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: 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.


so your "statistic" was a blatant fabrication with absolutely NO prrof to substantiate the claim....

No, my claim is one of experience and knowledge.

Prove me wrong.

Prove you are right. YOU are the one using "numbers" to make it seem like you know what you are talking about....you made up a statistic, and got caught when someone called you on it. Period.
 
Nov 5, 2001
18,366
3
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: Amused
Exactly. The lowfat craze started in the mid-late 70s and really took off in the 80s.

Compairing numbers from 2 years in the 90s is pointless and does nothing to disprove my claim.

Well ok, if everyone it just going to ignore my links lets provide a quote using the years you are talking about:

In contrast, between 1985 and
1999, per capita consumption of
total dietary fat remained steady,
even declining slightly in some intervening
years.Moreover, fat?s
share of total calories declined between
1985 and 1999, as total calorie
consumption increased. Meanwhile,
per capita consumption of
total carbohydrate and protein
jumped 21 percent and 12 percent
between 1985 and 1999.

Using the document the following data can be extracted from Table 2:

Pounds of Fat and oils consumed per capita per anum (includes salid and cooking oils, shortening, margarine, butter, lard, beef tallow and other edible fats and oils including those in dairy).

1970-74 = 55.7
1975-79 = 57.4
1980-84 = 61.7
1985-89 = 66.1
1990-94 = 69.1
1995-99 = 67.5
2000 = 77.1

So according to the FDA study, Total Fat consumption on a per captia annual basis has been steadily increasing since the early 1970's (the limit of the data in the report, note that there was a very slight drop in the late 90's). This is contrary to what you claimed.



okay, now I'd say it is safe to proclaim:

Owned!

But of course Amused will provde some other claim based without any proof and tell everyone it's up to us to prve him wrong.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: 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.


so your "statistic" was a blatant fabrication with absolutely NO prrof to substantiate the claim....

No, my claim is one of experience and knowledge.

Prove me wrong.

Prove you are right. YOU are the one using "numbers" to make it seem like you know what you are talking about....you made up a statistic, and got caught when someone called you on it. Period.

PWNED

Spurlock did not defraud anybody. His bias, methods, etc. were all perfectly transparent. Please, Amused, get the stick out of your ass.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Your document contradicts itself constantly..

Yet, curiously, it AGREES with ME, more than you...

In the last two decades, Americans
have been more successful in
reducing the fat density in home
foods than in away-from-home
foods, according to food intake surveys.
In 1977-78, both home and
away-from-home foods provided
slightly more than 41 percent of
their calories from fat. By 1987-88,
the fat density of home foods had
declined to 36.4 percent of total
calories from fat, compared with
38.7 for away-from-home foods.

Since then, the fat density of home
foods declined steadily to 31.5 percent
of calories from fat, but fat
from away-from-home foods
declined only slightly to 37.6
percent of calories.

This supports my claims.

Owned? Not at all.

Americans in 1997 consumed
more than a fifth (22 percent) more
fruit and vegetables than did their
counterparts in the 1970?s

Meanwhile, as calorie-intake levels
have risen, physical activity levels
appear to have declined among
the majority of Americans. More
than 60 percent of American adults
are not regularly physically active,
and 25 percent of adults are not
active at all, according to the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Increasing physical
activity is a formidable public
health challenge in a technologically
advanced society. Few occupations
today require significant
physical activity, and most people
use motorized transportation to get
to work and to perform routine
errands and tasks. Even leisure is
increasingly filled with sedentary
behaviors, such as watching television,
?surfing? the Internet, and
playing video games.

For the most part, your document agrees with MY central message of sedentary lifestyles being central to the obesity epidemic.

Yes, calorie intake has risen a three hundred calories or so. I never said it did not. I said sedentary lifestyles lead to over eating through munching. A quarter package of cookies or tenth of a box of Cheez-its easily fits the bill for both increases in calorie intake, and offset of benefits from an lower average fat intake from low fat foods and diets.

Next time you declare "owned" actually READ the document you are using to "OWN" me. :roll:

ERS data suggest that average
daily calorie intake increased 14.7
percent, or about 340 calories,
between 1984 and 1994, and
remained stable between 1994 and
1997. Of that 14.7-percent increase,
grains (mainly refined grain products)
contributed 6.2 percentage
points; added fats and oils, 3.4 percentage
points; added sugars, 3.4
percentage points; fruits and vegetables,
1.4 percentage points; and
meats and dairy products together,
0.3 percentage point.

The bulk of added calories was, GRAINS followed evenly by fat and sugars. This sounds a lot like munchies to me. Note that meat makes up an insignifigant part of those increased calories? Because meat isn't a munchie.

Per capita use of flour and cereal
products reached 200 pounds in
1997 from an annual average of 155
pounds in the 1950?s and 138
pounds in the 1970?s, when grain
consumption was at a record low
(table 5). The expansion in supplies
reflects ample grain stocks; strong
consumer demand for variety
breads, other instore bakery items,
and grain-based snack foods

How many of you munch while watching TV? Working/surfing/playing at the desk?

I've seen a LOT of tech company break rooms and KNOW what geeks munch all day at their desks. It ain't pretty.

Munching to this degree simply did not exist when people were moving around more. It's far harder to munch when you're on the move and physically active.

More support for my less fat claims:

Nutritional concern about fat and
cholesterol has encouraged the production
of leaner animals (beginning
in the late 1950?s), the closer
trimming of outside fat on retail
cuts of meat (beginning in 1986),
the marketing of a host of lower fat
ground and processed meat products,
and consumer substitution of
poultry for red meats since the late
1970?s?significantly lowering the
meat, poultry, and fish group?s contribution
to total fat and saturated
fat in the food supply. Despite near
record-high per capita consumption
of total meat in 1994, the proportion
of fat in the U.S. food supply
from meat, poultry, and fish
declined from 32 percent in the
1950?s to 25 percent in 1994. Similarly,
the proportion of saturated
fat contributed by meat, poultry,
and fish fell from 33 percent in the
1950?s to 26 percent in 1994.

Finally, you must understand that much of this "food survey" is guess work.

They must guess how much food is lost to waste and spoilage in a chain starting with growers and ending in homes and restaurants. No way in hell can that be done with any real accuracy, so they must make a best guess.

Owned? Hardly. The % of fat per calorie has dropped. Calorie intake has risen, largely due to the munching that goes along with sedentary lifestyles with GRAINS (munchies) making up the bulk of that increase. NOT meat.

My local supermarkets have no less than 3 full aisles filled with snack foods and munchies alone, with other munchies peppered throughout the store.

It wasn't like this when I was a kid. Chips alone did not take up an entire aisle back then. Cookies didn't have their own aisle either. And crackers didn't take up an entire row.

Stop the sedentary lifestyles and the munching will stop automatically.

At any rate, I'll repeat my objection to Spurlock's deception: Foods and those who sell them are NOT the bad guys, folks. YOU are. Only YOU decide what to put in your body and how much to exercise.

The solution to obesity: Get off your ass and stop munching.
 

Mayfriday0529

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2003
7,187
0
71
I finally saw it... (torrent)
I though it was a good show, it gives you a clear view of what tons of Americans have to face. It made me think how easily I spent 26 dollars this weekend in really unnecessary items.

Even though they were down lots of people helped them out, maybe it was because they had cameras following them. I also could not know what i do with no health insurance, that would suck.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Hmm, rather amazing how quickly the calls of "owned" turned into silence.

:roll:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,114
18,644
146
Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
Originally posted by: Amused
Hmm, rather amazing how quickly the calls of "owned" turned into silence.

:roll:


I got sidetracked by the secret picture thrad, sorry...

That thread does rock, doesn't it? :D