Counterpart to Supersize Me

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » August 23, 2005, 11:15 am

http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=7430

Using the same MCDiet but instead of gaining fat, he is losing weight!

Weaver has succeeded in showing that being nutritionally conscious and having a regular exercise schedule can overcome the junk food that you may consume. He stresses that if people would follow his example and be more responsible for their own health, that the obesity rate in America would no longer be a major problem.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 23, 2005, 11:40 am

This guy has successfully proven that if you quit your regular job and dedicate yourself to working out you can eat McShit 3 times a day with only limited harm to your body...How useful...

Get the idea that he never saw Supersize Me? Or failed entirely to understand the point?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 23, 2005, 11:46 am

the entire point of "supersize me" is that if you eat 6000 calories a day, you are going to get fat. morgan spurlock is a fucking fraud. unfortunately so is this retard.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 23, 2005, 12:36 pm

Downsize Me was a success in that it initiated open debate about fast food and the poor eating habits of the average American. It actually changed many fast food resturaunt's menus. McDonald's eliminated the Super Size option altogether. I liken Downsize Me to Bowling for Columbine in that both films pointed out obvious problems and both opened up the floodgates for opinons and the exchange of ideas to fix the situation.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » August 23, 2005, 1:49 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:McDonald's eliminated the Super Size option altogether.

No they didn't...

And "Supersize Me" was stupid on all levels.
"My theory is that if I start eating 3 cheeseburgers, french fries, a salad, a hot fudge sunday and the largest drink 3 times a day and stop excercising, I may gain weight."

No shit?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » August 23, 2005, 3:27 pm

Should you not stop eating when you are full?

McDonald's has a built in governor to help stop eating. When their fries get cold, they turn to stone and taste like paste. They are doing thier part.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 23, 2005, 7:19 pm

kyoukan wrote:the entire point of "supersize me" is that if you eat 6000 calories a day, you are going to get fat. morgan spurlock is a fucking fraud. unfortunately so is this retard.

Than
Kyoukan I want to thank you for your great commentary promoting open debate of the issues.

Morgan Spurlock is a good deal more legitimate than most left wing propaganda film makers, especially as he does not lie, he just does, and he made a valid point without lying. Something beyond the capability of most right or left wing Leni wannabes.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 23, 2005, 7:54 pm

As several others have pointed out, I don't really see where illustrating that eating 5000+ calories a day and reducing your activity level causes you to gain weight is much of a revelation.

For some fun commentary on Spurlock, check out Radley Balko's side project blog - http://spurlockwatch.typepad.com/front/.

Balko's main blog, http://www.theagitator.com covers a wider range of issues and is also excellent.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 23, 2005, 10:45 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Downsize Me was a success in that it initiated open debate about fast food and the poor eating habits of the average American.

saying that is like saying bowling for columbine was a success because it opened debate about gun control. sure it did, but unfortunately the facts and points brought up in the debates used a lot of junk science and extreme examples.

you aren't supposed to eat mcdonalds 3 times a day, or drink a six pack of coke every day. these companies may be guilty of marketing their junk food in such a way that it becomes part of american culture, but I've never seen an ad for mcdonald's or pepsi or KFC saying that you should eat their food daily. if people decide to do that and get fat, that is their choice.

fast food restaurants don't need retards like spurlock to watchdog them. it's not mcdonalds that makes people fat. people need to take responsibility for themselves.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 24, 2005, 3:07 am

Ain't it amazing how the general populace can jump on a topic that is seemingly 'stunning', when it is nothing more than obvious? 'Supersize me was just an exercise in that same obvious garbage. I can say the same of most of Moore's work. Pure $$$ generating bullshit-laced-with-a-hint-of-truth.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 24, 2005, 9:33 am

The one thing that was interesting though was not that he gained weight (because it would be nearly impossible not to) but that he was really screwing up his liver.
The dvd also had an experiment w/ regards to different types of mcd's food at room temperature. While everything else got stale and moldy, the fries looked like you could just throw them under a heat lamp. Scary stuff

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 24, 2005, 10:42 am

No they didn't...

Yes, they did. Are you arguing for arguments sake or are you just that stupid and bull headed that you actually believe you are right?

There are too many links to post, so I'll just link the google search page that prooves I am right and you are wrong. Bow down, kiss the rings, back away humbly, and we won't speak of this again.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ize+option

Deward · Post by **Deward** » August 24, 2005, 2:01 pm

I went and saw Morgan Spurlock in person this summer and he is very sincere in what he is talking about. He brought up the point about eating only at McDonalds and said that while most people don't eat three meals a day at McDonalds, there are a lot of people that do eat three fast food meals a day. He chose McDonalds because they are the largest fast food company. The weight gain from his diet was the least of his worries. The damage to his liver and other internal organs was way worse. He said that after finishing the 30 days, he had to detox for a week like a recovering heroin addict. I talked to him after the presentation and found him to be very sincere and down to earth. I don't think he was out to "get" McDonalds as he was to show people what a diet like that can do to you.

I agree that anyone that eats 5,000 calories a day and doesn't exercise is going to have problems but I think his documentary was pretty accurate. Very few people actually work out on a consistent basis. I haven't seen the counter-documentary but if the guy can skip work and work out every day then he could eat anything he wants. In the real world we have jobs. My schedule is 8 to 5 at work, 5 to 7 watching the baby and then I might get a couple hours to myself. By this point I am way too tired to exercise.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2005, 2:56 pm

Detox for a week? Please. Hello drama queen!

People should eat healthier foods than fast food but for those that don't, it's not going to cause a trip to detox.

It's all about metabolism.

Slow metabolism = fat people.
Fast metabolism = eat whatever the hell you want and not be fat

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 24, 2005, 3:30 pm

Metabolism has nothing to due with the blood test results.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 24, 2005, 4:13 pm

I believe the point was also to show people, in a hastened manner using a lot less time, what they're doing to themselves with years of eating fast food. I didn't watch it and think, gosh, he's right, I shouldn't eat fast food three times a days.. I watched it and thought, damn, so that's what eating McDonalds or fast food nearly every day of your life (as people in his movie said they did) will do to you over time.

His "30 days" show or whatever it's called, where he and his fiance lived off of minimum wage for 30 days was also very impressive imho. Not that I think it'll make a bit of difference, but he's putting that stuff out for people to see. I don't see how that's a bad thing at all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2005, 4:48 pm

Aslanna wrote:Metabolism has nothing to due with the blood test results.

The metabolism comment was only about fat.

My blood tests were in the good to excellent range after years of eating mostly fast food and Mountain Dew. Low cholesterol, Low blood pressure. Normal range in every other category in an extensive health report.

One person can't conduct an experiment and claim it's the same for everyone or I could show my results and have people dropping like flies trying to eat the same as I do. Body chemistry and age has to be taken into account along with what is eaten.

Wienaman · Post by **Wienaman** » August 24, 2005, 5:17 pm

On a side note, yes, the words Super Size were struck from the vocabulary of a McDonald's worker, but the same 6 oz (former super size, now large size) fry and the 32 oz drink that formerly came with a super size meal are now what the Large Size meal consist of. Super Size isn't really gone, the name was only changed to...umm...protect the innocent, yea that is it!

I know this stuff btw because I have been a McDonald's manager for about a year and a half now

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 24, 2005, 5:47 pm

Wienaman wrote:I know this stuff btw because I have been a McDonald's manager for about a year and a half now

So, do you bring a lunch to work with you?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 24, 2005, 7:25 pm

Is this movie the story of Lindsay Lohan's plunge from the pinnacle of hotness to the depths of skankosity? Call it "Nicole-Richietize Me"

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 24, 2005, 8:49 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
No they didn't...

Yes, they did. Are you arguing for arguments sake or are you just that stupid and bull headed that you actually believe you are right?

There are too many links to post, so I'll just link the google search page that prooves I am right and you are wrong. Bow down, kiss the rings, back away humbly, and we won't speak of this again.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ize+option

You can go into any mcdonalds anywhere and ask your mean to be super sized or upsized and they will give you the same crap they gave you before spurlock's shitty movie came out.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 24, 2005, 10:57 pm

He said that after finishing the 30 days, he had to detox for a week like a recovering heroin addict

I don't think he's ever known a recovering heroin addict. What a pussy.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 24, 2005, 11:28 pm

Sueven wrote:I don't think he's ever known a recovering heroin addict. What a pussy.

are you kidding? he's morgan spurlock: daredevil documentary filmmaker on the edge!

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » August 25, 2005, 12:42 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
No they didn't...

Yes, they did. Are you arguing for arguments sake or are you just that stupid and bull headed that you actually believe you are right?

There are too many links to post, so I'll just link the google search page that prooves I am right and you are wrong. Bow down, kiss the rings, back away humbly, and we won't speak of this again.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ize+option

You can go into any mcdonalds anywhere and ask your mean to be super sized or upsized and they will give you the same crap they gave you before spurlock's shitty movie came out.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 25, 2005, 1:15 pm

Winnow wrote:One person can't conduct an experiment and claim it's the same for everyone or I could show my results and have people dropping like flies trying to eat the same as I do.

That wasn't what he was claiming. You might want to try watching it (again).

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 25, 2005, 1:48 pm

You can go into any mcdonalds anywhere and ask your mean to be super sized or upsized and they will give you the same crap they gave you before spurlock's shitty movie came out.

Supersized Fries = 7oz
Large Fries = 6.2oz

Supersized Beverage = 42oz
Large Beverage = 32oz

You = wrong
Me = right

The supersize portions no longer exist. Spurlock's film, wether you hate the motherfucker or not, had a direct impact on that. You can also get more salad options, apples, and milk with your children's happy meal thanks to the debate the film sparked. Small changes? Sure, but at least he helped change something for the better.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 25, 2005, 2:23 pm

Well reading this thread was a fucking waste of my time.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 25, 2005, 3:06 pm

Supersized Fries = 7oz
Large Fries = 6.2oz

Wow... .8 of an ounce. Sure glad they got rid of Supersize!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » August 25, 2005, 3:18 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Supersized Fries = 7oz
Large Fries = 6.2oz
Wow... .8 of an ounce. Sure glad they got rid of Supersize!

That could result in one less square of toilet paper needer per person! That's a lot of paper!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 25, 2005, 4:07 pm

Aslanna wrote:Wow... .8 of an ounce. Sure glad they got rid of Supersize!

.8 of an ounce is a cut of over 11%. Do you think that overweight people would experience benefits if they cut all their portion sizes by 11%?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 25, 2005, 5:07 pm

Sueven wrote:
Aslanna wrote:Wow... .8 of an ounce. Sure glad they got rid of Supersize!
.8 of an ounce is a cut of over 11%. Do you think that overweight people would experience benefits if they cut all their portion sizes by 11%?

Of course, if the overweight person wanted to experience that benefit they could just have ordered the large instead of the supersize. If they wanted the supersize they could have ordered that. I don't really see where it is much of anyone elses business, no matter how "good" it may be for them.

P.S.
Of course if McDonald's thinks they can do better business wise by making the change then they have that right as well.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 25, 2005, 5:13 pm

Yes. I don't like or agree with Spurlock, nor do I support any sort of government action to restrict portion sizes or the nutritional content of food or anything like that. But acting like a portion size reduction of 11% is insignificant because it's 'only' .8 of an ounce is absurd.

.8 ounces of McDonalds French Fries contains 70 calories.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 25, 2005, 5:18 pm

Sueven wrote:Yes. I don't like or agree with Spurlock, nor do I support any sort of government action to restrict portion sizes or the nutritional content of food or anything like that. But acting like a portion size reduction of 11% is insignificant because it's 'only' .8 of an ounce is absurd.

If it's less than an ounce it is insignificant. I don't care if it's 11% or 80%.

Sueven wrote:.8 of an ounce is a cut of over 11%. Do you think that overweight people would experience benefits if they cut all their portion sizes by 11%?

I think they'd experience a lot more benefits by not going to McDonalds. That's like a smoker going from two packs of cigarettes a day to 36 cigarettes.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 25, 2005, 5:22 pm

Burning off the additional calories provided by .8 ounces of McDonalds French Fries would require about 15 minutes of walking.

I don't give a fuck about any totally arbitrary and worthless lines in the sand you draw to determine whether some quantity is significant or not.

I think they'd experience a lot more benefits by not going to McDonalds. That's like a smoker going from two packs of cigarettes a day to 36 cigarettes.

Back in Middle School, my DARE officer told me that every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your life. Assuming that's a relevant statistic and not just some bullshit lie, your imaginary smoker would add more than a week to the length of his life after only one year of 36 cigarettes a day instead of 40.

small change + long time = noticeable impact.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 25, 2005, 5:26 pm

The only point to this entire thing is that I would agree that McDonalds employees shouldn't "push" Supersizing on its customers as a way to make more money.

If anything good came out of this, I think McDonalds doesn't always ask if you want to upgrade your meal to whatever the larger size is now...maybe they still do but I haven't noticed it.

At some McDonalds you can buy a "Bucket of Fries" which is huge. It's like a Big Gulp cup full of fries. I see nothing wrong with offering huge portions as long as it's not pushed on the person.

On the other hand...do people bitching about this not notice the mammoth portions of food you are given at nice restaurants? Normallyou you can't finish those huge meals...guess what...you stop eating when you're full and I don't see people bitching at the fine restaurant establishments about getting too much food.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 25, 2005, 6:46 pm

Sueven wrote:Burning off the additional calories provided by .8 ounces of McDonalds French Fries would require about 15 minutes of walking.

So going by that the other 6.2 ounces takes 116 minutes of walking. The point is that those extra 15 minutes are insignificant in the overall scheme of the rest of the meal you consumed. Oh, not including that 1 calorie Diet Coke of course..

Back in Middle School, my DARE officer told me that every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your life. Assuming that's a relevant statistic and not just some bullshit lie, your imaginary smoker would add more than a week to the length of his life after only one year of 36 cigarettes a day instead of 40.

Another week on oxygen machines and coughing out their lungs. Not any different than the 300+ pound person who will have all sorts of health issues to to their eating habits.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 25, 2005, 7:09 pm

Back in Middle School, my DARE officer told me that every cigarette you smoke takes 7 minutes off your life

I think that literally means the 7 minutes it takes to smoke the cigarete.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 25, 2005, 8:54 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
You can go into any mcdonalds anywhere and ask your mean to be super sized or upsized and they will give you the same crap they gave you before spurlock's shitty movie came out.
Supersized Fries = 7oz
Large Fries = 6.2oz

Supersized Beverage = 42oz
Large Beverage = 32oz

You = wrong
Me = right

The supersize portions no longer exist.

This is patently false. Go into any mcdonalds and ask your meal to be super sized. it's just not on the menu anymore.

I would hardly call salads and apples being available on mcdonald's menu to be ground breaking. I can get salads and apples anywhere. when I go to mcdonalds, I want a fucking hamburger and freedom fries.

mcdonalds has experienced higher sales in all of their sandwiches since supersize me came out. if anything americans are eating more crap. mcdonalds just opened up a new market when they started offering "healthier" (if you want to call apples and lettuce sprayed with propyl para-hydroxybenzoate healthy to keep them fresh looking weeks after being cut and prepared healthy) options.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 25, 2005, 9:04 pm

Experiment one.

Visited McDonalds - ordered Supersize.......

Reply, "We don't do that anymore."

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » August 25, 2005, 9:06 pm

Nick wrote:Experiment one.

Visited McDonalds - ordered Supersize.......

Reply, "We don't do that anymore."

Haha!

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » August 25, 2005, 9:55 pm

They do NOT serve supersize anymore where I live either. It's a normal large drink with large fries, thats the biggest I can get.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 25, 2005, 10:48 pm

Winnow wrote:The only point to this entire thing is that I would agree that McDonalds employees shouldn't "push" Supersizing on its customers as a way to make more money.

I think it's pretty obvious that very little money is made on the actual food at McD's, it's really the lease of the land that makes up the bulk of it which is then topped off by the huge margin in soft drink sales. Perceived value is the biggest scam going.

On the other hand...do people bitching about this not notice the mammoth portions of food you are given at nice restaurants? Normallyou you can't finish those huge meals...guess what...you stop eating when you're full and I don't see people bitching at the fine restaurant establishments about getting too much food.

Nice restaurants don't usually serve mammoth portions at all. In fact, nice restaurant portions are usually the butt of the "value" joke aimed at people who don't desire anything more than burgers and fries. While "Nice" can be considered arbitrary based off of what someone's preconceived notions are, a rated restaurant provides a balance of portions and food that follows from course to course. If the portion is larger, it's normally because the selection would be lost if sectioned off to another customer ie. a large freshly cooked whole fish or a large porterhouse or it's a dish that's to be shared by more than one person.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 25, 2005, 11:50 pm

by nice restaurants i think he means like denny's!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 26, 2005, 12:33 am

This is patently false. Go into any mcdonalds and ask your meal to be super sized. it's just not on the menu anymore.

No, it's not false. If you ask for a supersize meal, you just get large because there is no supersize. They just don't bother to explain that fact to every lemming that's been supersizing by habit for the last 14 years. Jesus Christ, do I have to draw you a picture?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 26, 2005, 12:47 am

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/so ... /ada..html

At McDonald’s, a selection of portion sizes is an important part of our approach to overall menu choice, and we offer a number of different
options. For example, each market offers a variety of hamburger choices of different sizes. Drinks and French fries also come in a variety of small to large sizes.

“Supersizing” is being phased out as a standard option across the McDonald’s System. For example, it has already been phased out in Canada and will be phased out in the U.S. by the end of 2004. Supersize drinks may be offered during specific, limited-time promotions.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 26, 2005, 1:48 am

Detox!

Spurlock sends the wrong message. He absolves us of responsibility for our own fitness. We aren’t to blame for being fat; big corporations are. And the remedy, he suggests, is to file lawsuits and plead with the food police for protection.

Spurlock’s weight gain and health decline have nothing to do with where he ate. After all, Robert DeNiro gained 60 pounds for his role in “Raging Bull” by dining at great restaurants in Italy.

Anyone eating anywhere will gain lots of weight and become unhealthy if he eats too much and does not burn it off through exercise. Someone Spurlock’s size can eat 2,500 to 3,000 calories per day and maintain his weight, say nutritionists. In the movie, Spurlock eats about twice that many calories.

Nutritionists calculate that a man gains roughly a pound for every 3,500 extra calories. So every three days in the film, Spurlock overeats his way to an extra two pounds or more.

There’s no surprise here — except that gullible reviewers have embraced the movie. Spurlock won best director honors at the Sundance Film Festival.

It is not easy to eat as many calories as Spurlock eats at McDonald’s. Consider this daily diet: a breakfast of an Egg McMuffin, orange juice and coffee; lunch of Big Mac, medium fries, Coke and hot caramel sundae; and dinner of 10 Chicken McNuggets, sweet and sour sauce, milk and Fruit ‘n Yogurt Parfait. Total calories, according to a handy calculator on the McDonald’s Web site: 2,730.

Now, double that amount, and you get a notion of what Spurlock ate every day for a month. Coupled with no exercise, it would be a miracle if he didn’t gain weight and feel sick.

Dawn Jackson of the American Dietetic Association complains that the movie “gives the message you can’t eat healthy at a fast-food restaurant. That’s not true.” She points out that a breakfast of Egg McMuffin and orange juice; lunch of Chicken McGrill sandwich, side salad, yogurt parfait and bottled water; and dinner of hamburger, small fries and Diet Coke all comes to less than 1,500 calories. Stick to such a diet and, as a man Spurlock’s size, you’ll lose a couple pounds a week.

What Americans need is balance: Sensible eating plus exercise. It’s not where you eat. It’s how much you eat and how much you burn off.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 26, 2005, 9:16 am

kyoukan wrote:You can go into any mcdonalds anywhere and ask your mean to be super sized or upsized and they will give you the same crap they gave you before spurlock's shitty movie came out.

Gotta love how you talk shit, it has been shown repeatedly since you vomited this shit that you are wrong.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 26, 2005, 9:59 am

Dependson the franchise.....
Arby's in Knoxville - here sure have a turkey sub!
Arby's in Portland - oh no sub here so sorry have sandwich!
Arby's in Knoxville - here sure have an arby-Q!
Arby's in Portland - Arby What?

Some McDonald's Franchises may have done away with the Supersize all together and some still do it. Pointing fingers at each other and calling each other fucktards only makes me want to take a Cheeseburger sandwich rapper, take a monstrous stinky mcdonalds shit in it and then rub your face all up in that brown anal delight. If you're lucky I might even have soft serve that day, wouldn't that be rad.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » August 26, 2005, 10:04 am

Two words: Personal responsibility

If you can't control your behavior and end up being a fat bugger, guess you'll die early. Suck to be you, that's in no way McDonalds fault. Oh wait, this is the same crowd that wants to convince me Joe Crackhead was victimized by the evil gun that attached itself to his hand when he shot someone. Or smokers that engaged in a habit that made them cough up globs of brown stuff, then being surprised when it killed them. Or the "defective" top heavy vehicle that rolls when you drive it like a sports car.

The relationship of poor diet or overeating > weight gain is very obvious to anyone with a mentality over age 12. It's no ones fault but the consumers.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 26, 2005, 11:05 am

Funny that people think less of his work when they are big Moore supporters, all the things you attack are the same misshots that Moore takes. But I see truth is less important than party lines.