Anyone seen Supersize Me?

[korme]

I think it would be interesting to see, if anyone has seen it, was it enjoyable?

[Ravens Fan]

I caught it at my local arts theater a couple of nights ago. At first, I was impressed by it. Morgan Spurlock (the director/mastermind/lead actor) reminded me of a better looking, more in touch with reality Michael Moore. The documentary itself is very reminescent of Moore's work (lots of music and cute cartoons and catchy graphics to make sure even a 3 year old would stay interested for a bit). I'd say it was enjoyable, if for no other reason than the fact that it sparked plenty of debate among my friends and I think it brings an important issue at least somewhat into the public spotlight (but then again, the same could be argued about The Day After Tomorrow).

Anyhow, my biggest complaint is that Spurlock made no substantial argument. About all he proved through the duration of the movie is that eating fastfood is bad for you. Although he did so in an especially graphic and entertaining manner, he's not really saying anything revolutionary. Most people know multiple trips to McDonald's in one week aren't exactly a recipe for good health. The closest thing to a real claim (and a ridiculously simplistic one at that) that he put forward was that if we don't put an to McDonald's soon, it will put an end to us. Not the most moving of rallying cries.

The entire movie just felt too much like a reality show-type gimmick. After the first few days of Big Macs and McGriddles, Morgan starts to experience the "McShakes" and the "McGas" before he McPukes all over the place (apparently the writers found no end to the hilarity of putting "Mc" in front of everything). There are also needless scenes with his girlfriend and shots of him in a stars and stripes thong that add little to substance to his claims.

All that made it all the more frustrating when he touched on interesting, pertinent topics. He spends 10 minutes in a high school cafeteria watching kids devour chips and coke and wonders why the government supports this diet. He questions corporate responsibility and the ethics behind conditioning kids to love fatty, unhealthy food (Happy Meals and the Playplace). He even talks briefly about personal responsibility (shouldn't we know better than to eat this crap?). But in the end, he seemed to come away with no conclusion greater than fastfood is bad.

I give him credit for an interesting, and sometimes eye-opening look at the fastfood industry, but I feel like he could've done so much more. My friend suggested it was like a watered down, MTV version of Fastfood Nation, although I've never read that, so someone else will have to decide whether or not that's accurate. Either way, I'd say it's a better use of $9 and 90 minutes than most of the other trash playing in theaters right now. You just might want to skip the popcorn for this one.

[MJ4H]

Would it have been as interesting if he didn't pick the highest calorie, largest items on the menu each time he ate there? Wouldn't the same thing happen to him if he had made the same type menu choices at basically ANY restaurant? This really baffles me. It's not as if everything at McDonald's is the size of a truck and has like a megawatt of calories.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Would it have been as interesting if he didn't pick the highest calorie, largest items on the menu each time he ate there? Wouldn't the same thing happen to him if he had made the same type menu choices at basically ANY restaurant? This really baffles me. It's not as if everything at McDonald's is the size of a truck and has like a megawatt of calories.

Part of the whole thing was that he didnt just order the same thing over and over again, he ordered everything from the menu, and when he ordered the meals he only supersized when asked.

The point is, that Mcdonalds serves options for every meal. Because Mcdonalds has an option for every meal, and different items all over the menu, one would think that one could live off of its food, if you don't order one same extra fattening thing over and over again. Obviously that is not the case. In fact, I think the evidence that one month's worth of food at a place can do that kind of damage to one person is quite shocking, even what we know of fast food. I find it interesting that Mcdonalds called his approach "reckless". Even though the guy just ate his meals at their restuarant, ordering different things off their menu. If that isn't safe, how can even the occational meal at Mcdonalds be that safe? I wonder if Mcdonalds would be willing to admit "Our food is for occational consumption only."

All this being said, I still eat fast food all the time, but I have always been for quantity of life over quality.

[MJ4H]

Eh? My understanding was that he got the largest portions possible at each meal and never exercised. Maybe I should see the movie before I comment, but if it is as pointless as I've heard I'm not going to waste my time.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

he ordered everything from the menu

Are you saying he had the salads?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Eh? My understanding was that he got the largest portions possible at each meal and never exercised. Maybe I should see the movie before I comment, but if it is as pointless as I've heard I'm not going to waste my time.

I've not seen the movie, but according to the interviews I've seen him give(3 of em), he ordered everything on the menu.(I believe he said twice) He also only ordered the SuperSized portion when offered. He also said that he walked 3 miles a day, which he noted is more exercise than the average American.

Now, did he really order everything from the menu twice and walk 3 miles a day? I havent seen the movie, but he seemed like a sincere enough guy to me.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Are you saying he had the salads?

He said everything in the interviews, so I assume so. Although I suppose its possible that he exagerated and just meant something like all sandwiches or all meals. Perhaps someone whos seen the movie can clarify. Although I am pretty sure that they did not have all the salad options when he filmed this movie. They probably had those weird salad shaker things, but the movie could predate all the "gormet" salads they have now.

[Sharpieman]

If anyone who is suspect of Fast Food in general would like to know more about the subject and/or not ever want to eat Fast Food again, read "Fast Food Nation." Really good book.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

The point is, that Mcdonalds serves options for every meal. Because Mcdonalds has an option for every meal, and different items all over the menu, one would think that one could live off of its food, if you don't order one same extra fattening thing over and over again.

What would ever give you that idea? I could give you 15 different shades of blue paint, that doesn't mean you'll be able to paint anything yellow because you've got so many "choices." If that's the premise of this movie, this guy doesn't deserve the cameras he shot this film with. That's just plain ridiculous.

Obviously that is not the case.

Obvious to some of us, at least.

[ice4277]

At first, I thought it was an interesting premise for a movie but, as mentioned before, what do we learn here? Eating McDonalds all day, every day, is not good for you? OK, well, most of us knew that. Also, I think he was eating something like 5000 calories a day. Hello? Eat 5000 calories of ANYTHING a day and you are going to gain a ton of weight.

[QuikSand]

So the count of people who saw the film stands at one, yet we're engaging in near fisticuffs about what he did or didn't do in the film? Fascinating.

I thought the premise of the film was clever. I have no real desire to see it, though.

[Ravens Fan]

As the one person who did actually see the movie, I can tell you that he did try EVERYTHING on the menu at least once. Yet, once he made it through all of his choices, he did seem to have a predisposition towards double cheeseburgers and milkshakes that could be deemed "irresponsible." That may have been a choice by the editors to only show him downing burgers and such, though, since we didn't see him eating every meal. Watching him eat a side salad and a bottle of water probably wouldn't have produced the same visual effect.

However, as he pointed out, even the "healthy" menu items, aren't so great. The grilled chicken caeser salad (with dressing) has nearly as many calories (390 to 420) as a quarter pounder (without cheese), more fat (24 grams), more cholestorol (90 mg), and almost twice the sodium (1320 to 770 mg). You can try to make a healthy McMeal on the McDonald's website, but it's pretty difficult, and I think that was his point. McDonald's claims they offer healthy options, yet, regardless of what you eat there, it's nearly impossible to maintain anything resembling a healthy diet with a normal amount of calories and avoid going hungry.

I have to question the truth of some of his claims, though, since he did make the Fruit 'N Yogurt parfait sound nearly as bad as one of the burgers when you get the large size with granola. However, according to the McD's website, even that item packs only 160 calories, 2 grams of fat, and 5 mg of cholestorol, so I'm not exactly sure what he's talking about. Is it possible that McD's changed it in the past year to make it healthier? The item was listed as containing low-fat yogurt now, and they've changed other menu items for the better so who knows.

As far as the premise of the movie, Spurlock starts off by noting the recent lawsuits against McDonald's that were dismissed because the plantiffs could not prove that eating a diet of McDonald's was the cause of their obesity or something like that. The passage was highlighted in the beginning of the movie and used as a jumping off point for everything else that followed. Whether that's a reasonable justification for the movie is obviously up for debate.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ravens Fan

However, as he pointed out, even the "healthy" menu items, aren't so great. The grilled chicken caeser salad (with dressing) has nearly as many calories (390 to 420) as a quarter pounder (without cheese), more fat (24 grams), more cholestorol (90 mg), and almost twice the sodium (1320 to 770 mg). You can try to make a healthy McMeal on the McDonald's website, but it's pretty difficult, and I think that was his point. McDonald's claims they offer healthy options, yet, regardless of what you eat there, it's nearly impossible to maintain anything resembling a healthy diet with a normal amount of calories and avoid going hungry.

If he had just stopped there, I think this whole thing would have been far more effective. IMO, the main thrust of this movie seems fairly obvious and not up for debate.

[Desnudo]

Glandular problems aside, if you don't want to get fat you don't have to. They have McDonalds and Pizza Huts in Europe and I don't see nearly as many fat people there. The problem in the US is that people eat too much and walk and exercise too little. It's a car culture. You could eat ten Big Macs a day if you were willing to run twenty miles a day.

[Barkeep49]

I saw the movie and here's my problem:

Sperlock was/is a health food nut. His girlfriend is a vegan chef. Not a vegeterian chef, but a vegan one. This man was in extremely good shape. It's no wonder to me, then, why his body reacted so violently to fast food: it simply wasn't use to that.

Is fast food over consumed? Sure. Was the movie entertaining? You bet. Did it present anything that I hadn't already read/heard? Not really.

[BishopMVP]

Meanwhile, this woman (hxxp://www.cei.org/gencon/003,04009.cfm) eats nothing but McDonald's 3 times a day for a month, loses 10 pounds and drops 40 points off her cholesterol. Which one gets all the press?

[Ksyrup]

Because the term "personal responsibility" is used. Americans are all so stupid that we must buy the supersized value meal from the commercial, instead of exercising a bit of restraint and thinking for ourselves. That's too much trouble, though.

Luckily, the legal system is far ahead of the media on this one.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Glandular problems aside, if you don't want to get fat you don't have to. They have McDonalds and Pizza Huts in Europe and I don't see nearly as many fat people there. The problem in the US is that people eat too much and walk and exercise too little. It's a car culture. You could eat ten Big Macs a day if you were willing to run twenty miles a day.

Problem is you can't really walk anywhere here. Say I wanted to skip the bus and walk to the train station its 6 kilometres, which would take me a little less than an hour. Maybe I should walk to the nearest movie theatre, 8 km. Hmmm how about work, 30 kilometres. The problem since we have so much land and everyone is so enamored with having a yard and a house nothing has really been built up, everything goes out. One of my best friends is from germany and they had never owned a car until they got here. They thought they could bike everywhere or walk. It took them two weeks before they started looking for a car. That is not to say that you can't exercise in other ways, I run 10 miles everyother day, point is, it is pretty tough when everything is so spread out.

[AENeuman]

I saw the movie and agree with the reviews, pretty much. I think the least convincing thing in the movie was the mc donald thing. the bits on school food, walking, Texas, and drinking soda was by far more enlightening.
Of course his body freaked out, but it did rebound at the end a little bit and i think that's what happens when one's diet changes so fast.
the school thing is real good in the movie, as well as in fast food nation. working in schools i see the double edge sword of getting funding from coke and the like. i do not think it is a coincidence that programs like band and sports are missing from the schools here in SF since they banned soda and chips.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Ravens Fan

However, as he pointed out, even the "healthy" menu items, aren't so great. The grilled chicken caeser salad (with dressing) has nearly as many calories (390 to 420) as a quarter pounder (without cheese)

This is probably true, but if you ate 420 calories worth of food for lunch, say, then a reasonable dinner, you probably are not going to put on much weight. For that matter, if you ate this all three meals of the day, your calorie intake would be about 1300 per day. You would lose weight doing that. So, again, it all depends how you do it.

[sabotai]

I'm doing a documentary on what happens when all you do is eat Snickers bars and drink Wild Cherry Pepsi for a month, and nothing else. After that, I'm doing one on just eating Butterfingers and drinking Maple Syrup.