SuperSize Me

[Jim Alfredson]

I'm sure the doc is amusing, but can it really be that illuminating? I mean, c'mon, every idiot knows that eating fast food (and nothing but) for a month straight is bad for you.

Tell that to the people suing McDonalds for "making" them fat.

[BruceH]

30 days of McDoanlds. Beyond gross. Even worse than Joe Bialek spam.

Yeah, and his wife/girlfriend is a vegan chef!

[maren]

I think he did a favor for those people who are in denial about this kind of food. This is a real problem in the U.S. - Obesity is out of control.

Not just in the US -- obesity is becoming a bigger problem throughout the world. Lawsuits against fast food joints are pretty silly, but I think that it's a good thing that people are more aware of what's contained their food.

Guy, who ate a McNugget meal today

I just wanted to point out that it took a lot of anti-McDonald's propaganda and protest to get them to make info on ingredients and calorie counts available to customers.

Kind of reminds me of that Warner Bros. cartoon where the wolves, sheep and sheep dogs clock out at the end of every day of going through the motions of their "jobs" -- I mean, this is how capitalism "works", right? Somebody makes money on a film complaining about McDonald's, or on a lawsuit against them, and in response to bad PR McDonald's (while continuing to make a fortune) actually scrambles to cash in on a market for something healthier?

Edited May 30, 2004 by maren

[chris olivarez]

30 days of McDoanlds. Beyond gross. Even worse than Joe Bialek spam.

Yeah, and his wife/girlfriend is a vegan chef!

The horror!!!The horror!!!!

[chris olivarez]

I'm sure the doc is amusing, but can it really be that illuminating?  I mean, c'mon, every idiot knows that eating fast food (and nothing but) for a month straight is bad for you. 

Tell that to the people suing McDonalds for "making" them fat.

That's because they dont super size personal responsibility.

[Soulstation1]

i read somewhere after 2 weeks, he had problems with the "lead in his pencil"

ss1

[BruceH]

i read somewhere after 2 weeks, he had problems with the "lead in his pencil"

ss1

Actually, the most surprising thing was that his liver started to freak out. None of the doctors predicted that.

[RDK]

From Saturday Night Live a year or so ago...

"In response to pending legal action concerning obesity liability the McDonald's Corporation would like to present the following statement:

"The Big N' Tasty sandwich is food. Scientific studies suggest that excessive consumption of food may cause weight gain. In other words, if you stuff your greasy pie hole nonstop, you're probably going to pork up. The McDonald's Corporation had previously believed that this was obvious to all but very small children and morons. Since children and morons are valued customers of the McDonald's Corporation, we would like to point out other potential risks that could be associated with the Big N' Tasty.

"The Big N' Tasty is intended to be eaten. Complications may arise from shoving the Big N' Tasty up your nose. Dropping the Big N' Tasty from extremely tall buildings may cause the Big N' Tasty to achieve sufficient velocity to injure innocent people below. The Big N' Tasty should not be used as an artificial heart. The McDonald's Corporation seriously doubts anyone would try this, but hey, if you didn't know that gorging yourself on hamburgers might turn you into a fat-ass, then anything's possible.

"According to United States Law, the Big N' Tasty cannot perform the duties of a Legal Guardian. If you were to go into McDonald's and say, "Hey Big N' Tasty, take care of my kids while I run some errands," you may face legal action. Theoretically, the Big N' Tasty could be mistaken for a weapon during a police standoff. Marriage ceremonies officiated by the Big N' Tasty are not recognized in any of the contiguous 48 states. The Big N' Tasty is not God. For questions about any additional use of the Big N' Tasty, other than eating, please consult our website.

"For the small children and morons, McDonald's is the red and yellow restaurant by the highway. Remember to bring money."

[Soulstation1]

[take5]

Almost all of the criticisms of the movie I see heare and elsewhere must be from people who haven't actually seen the film.

At the end, during the narrated conclusion, Spurlock says- point blank- that the weight (pardon the pun) of responsbility is on the individual. That we can choose not to eat there. He points out their devious marketing schemes and such, but the spirit of the film is that we can change ourselves before changing the world.

And as for "everyone knows it's bad for you"- well, not exactly. I mean everyone knows that Big Macs ain't health food, but few are truly cognisant of the fast food production and marketing techniques that pervades our lives, our kitchens, our schools. They don't know that the packaged good they buy are full of sugars or sodium. Yes, they can read the label, and should, but until relatively recently in our country's history, one could look reasonably conclude that iced tea was OK, not that it had as much sugar as a coke. Or that a salad would be healthier than a burger- not true at McDonald's where the dressing is like liquid McNuggets nutritionally.

Or just exactly what crap public school kids eat, and why that is so. That is really the most serious thing in the movie.

The food industry as a whole has changed and we need everything we can get, including this film, to make people aware of it.

[.:.impossible]

Well, I'm not a doctor, but I did audition to play one on TV once.

There's something to be said for stating the obvious. I think this guy proved the point pretty well. Wake up people. You are turning yourself into shit. Talk amongst yourselves. Or at least think about what you are putting into your body.

Deus, I don't think you've been to Wal-Mart recently. It ain't pretty.

And I don't think that everybody thinks about personal nutrition the way a doctor does Tony.

That McDonald's press release is a joke. Who is going to stop into McDonald's for a salad and a pedometer? Probably the same person that still craves the Big Mac. They sure as hell aren't picking up new customers. McDonald's now has the rehab and relapse diet on the same Combo board.

Imagine if McDonald's became synonymous with health food!

PS I think the iced tea has as much sugar as Coke comment was referring to sweet tea. Been to Bojangles' lately?! Whoa! And yummm!

[DrJ]

I am still rather distressed and surprised at how little credit people give to their fellow men and women.

The idea that you have to be a doctor to think about nutrition "the way Tony does" is just silly. Honestly, my diet isn't that great, many of my patients eat far more healthily than I do. That was my point, not me trying to sound superior.

Healthy eating is a matter of choices and priorities, and I'm just as susceptible to the "too busy to find something nutritious" syndrome as the rest of the country sometimes. The days when people could honestly say "I had no idea what was in my food" or "I couldn't find information on what was in my food" are LONG gone. Now it just boils down to the usual laziness etc when someone eats poorly all the time and does nothing about it (and again I'm including myself in this category on my worse days). Come on- step up to the plate, take some responsibility!

Anyway, I still contend that there's probably not more than a handful of people in the U.S. who, in 2004, could honestly say that BEFORE this doc, they had no idea that eating fast food every day for days on end would be bad for them, but AFTER, well hey, NOW I REALLY GET IT! It just is not plausible people...and so my point stands, what possible of value can come from this hair-brained concept?

That goes even more for the ridiculous comments being made about how it's stuff like this movie that pushes McDonalds and others to advertise the nutritional content of their food. I can remember as a KID (longer ago than I'd like to remember) they were doing this...that was well over 20 years ago.

Finally - Big Al, I agree with you that advertising works. But that is ultimately neither here nor there...after all not everyone who sees a McDonald's ad goes out and immediately starts eating their food. Furthermore, you can advertise something that people don't perceive is of value to or useful to them all day, and nobody will buy the product.

The truth is, the real issue is that people in the U.S. value fast food - their lives are overloaded and it's a quick fix, a "gosh I'm driving home yet another evening with nothing in the refrigerator/no time to cook so that drive through looks pretty tempting" thing. I'm not saying that is right or "the way it should be," but that's the way it is. THAT is what sells hamburgers, not the advertising (which just stokes the fires).

And the important part is, THAT is what people need to examine as they begin to look at how they can eat more heathily...is there just too much going on in my life? Is eating well enough of a priority that I can give up some other thing and spend more time on food prep and shopping? Can we restructure our household routine? IF we do eat out, can we find a healthier place or set of places to frequent?

If someone doesn't take the time to examine these types of root causes for their lousy diet and stands around blaming McDonalds and advertising all day for their paunch, then they're going to continue to be another alarming obesity statistic.

Time to get real, folks, or get used to being bigger.

[DrJ]

PS - Cary, you may not think people stop into McDonalds for salads, but some do. My wife and I are both the typical way over-committed people I'm lambasting above ( ) and often don't have much in the way of food in the house. I have learned to eat far more healthy food even at fast food places and it really helps...I was not overweight before but getting close to upper end of my ideal body weight, and I've dropped about 10 lbs by doing this, now firmly in the "ideal weight" range (for health, not based on life insurance standards).

Salads with the low fat dressing, no-meat burritos, that kind of thing, so that even when you do have to eat fast food you eat relatively well.

So I think you are wrong, many people are eating the healthier items on the fast food menus. In fact, I'll take the position many of you are taking: they wouldn't sell the salads if they didn't move!

[catesta]

Time to get real, folks, or get used to being bigger.

We could always sue the clothing manufacturers that keep making larger sizes.

[maren]

That goes even more for the ridiculous comments being made about how it's stuff like this movie that pushes McDonalds and others to advertise the nutritional content of their food. I can remember as a KID (longer ago than I'd like to remember) they were doing this...that was well over 20 years ago.

Tony, Tony, Tony... ridiculous? Ouch!

I was a kid well over 40 years ago, so when I read your post I thought perhaps my perspective on the past "well over 20 years" may have been a bit foreshortened, but I thought I recalled MickeyD nutritional postings first becoming available when my son (born in 1983) was about 3 or 4, and starting to be invited to other kids' parties at McDonaldses.

Sure enough, I found the following verification in an affidavit from Stephen Gardner, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas from 1984-1991 (see more at http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnesse...er_stephen.html). The emphasis in bold is Gardner's own.

The 1986 investigation was a part of an industry-wide investigation of the fast food industry for its failure to disclose ingredient and nutritional information about fast foods. Many Americans - two-worker households in particular- are forced by circumstance to go to fast food outlets as one of their primary sources of meals. Americans are concerned about the ingredient and nutrition content of the foods they eat, and have repeatedly expressed a desire to obtain more information about those foods. Fast food meals tend to contain high amounts of the very things that health professionals counsel against in the diet - fat and sodium in particular.

The Attorneys General had discovered that fast food restaurants did not make the ingredient or nutrition content of their foods available to the public. We believed that this failure to disclose ingredient or nutrition in some manner probably violated our state consumer protection and food labeling laws.

Therefore, we embarked on a series of meetings with the major fast food chains, McDonald's among them. On May 6, 1986, we wrote McDonald's a letter advising it of our concerns and requesting a meeting with McDonald's. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated fully herein by this reference. McDonald's accepted our invitation and a meeting was held. Although no fast food chain was initiaily willing to label its foods properly or otherwise to disclose the ingredient and nutrition content of its foods, we were able through cooperative discussions to arrive at a solution - disclosure of ingredient and nutrition information in a booklet, poster, or other such medium rather than disclosure on the labeling of each individual item. This compromise permitted the fast food chains more flexibility in the design and use of their packaging materials.

Although we continued to believe that ingredient and nutrition information was best delivered on the label of the product, we agreed to accept the use of brochures and other media as minimally complying with our state laws. Accordingly, we wrote to McDonald's on June 3, 1986. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated fully herein by this reference. At the time the June 3 letter was sent, McDonald's had not agreed to make ingredient and nutrition information available to consumers through any mechanism. McDonald's choice at this point was to comply with our state laws in this manner or to be sued for violations of those laws.

And in anticipation of Tony's saying "okay, that was the LAW -- not 'stuff like this movie' " -- I don't think it's "ridiculous" to infer that public agit-prop and consumer complaint influence government and industry response.

Edited June 2, 2004 by maren

[.:.impossible]

We are all going to take something different away from this documentary and from this conversation. Value? Might be entertainment to some. Might have a deeper meaning, a narrative on gluttony. Might be one person pointing out how f’d up HE thinks our on-the-move society has become.

I had no idea that burgers would eventually affect my liver or my potency! I know they’ll make me fat and clog and harden my arteries, but I don’t really know what that means…

Tony, I hear where you are coming from, but I think we still have a different perspective on the general public. Is the Atkins diet a healthy way to live? You’d think so when you count the number of people who have jumped on in the past 3 years! People I KNOW actually think this is a healthy diet!

[DrJ]

Well don't even get me started on the Atkins diet thing...because again it is far more complex a question than most people think.

No question that if someone thinks they can cut carbs and replace them with heavily marbled steaks etc and be healthier for it, they are likely deluding themselves (unless they are one of those rare folks who can eat all the wrong foods in large amounts and never suffer ill effects...good genes and all, we hate them, but they do exist!).

Yeah, the "no bun hamburger" as health food, I LOVE that one!

What drives me crazy is that the not so subtle implication in the Atkins craze is that "what doctors/nutritionists have been saying for years about the food pyramid is wrong...if only I'd known this before, I'd have lost weight long ago!" So basically people have found yet another way to temporarily blame their over-eating related weight problems on someone else (which is silly when you examine it, given that 1000s of people were able to lose weight by following said pyramid).

So these Atkins faddists will stick with this until they start gaining weight again, then will be on to the next fad, conveniently removing any need to take a hard fast look at the unpleasant truth - if they just ate less and exercised, they'd lose weight!

However, in fairness to the Atkins approach (or at least something closely related to it and an idea that has some physiologic basis), another approach is to cut the carbs and add healthier protein sources such as soy, fish, etc. For someone with the "metabolic syndrome" (an epidemic problem in this country in which people become overweight, then develop an insulin resistant physiology that leads to high cholesterol, hypertension, frank diabetes, and a vicious cycle with more obesity etc etc) often times combining a slightly higher protein, lower carb diet with moderate calorie restriction can result in dramatic loss of weight and less insulin resistance.

This is not an "Atkins diet" per se but basically the same principle, and it's actually worked so well in some of my diabetic patients they are able to minimize or come off meds, plus it doesn't increase risk of high cholesterol, vacular disease, etc like substituting fatty red meats for pasta would.

The point is that Atkins' approach is neither panacea nor great evil, it simply IS and there are people who when they do it sanely can benefit.

And to bring this all back to my original points: fast food is much the same. Hey, I love a hamburger and fries as much as the next person, sometimes fast food just hits the spot. It's not inherently evil, it doesn't CAUSE anything when eaten occasionally. It just IS. The sooner people stop blaming fast food and the fast food industry for stuff that has everything to do with personal choices and responsibility, the greater the chance the obesity epidemic in the U.S. will start to reverse.

And in anticipation of Tony's saying "okay, that was the LAW -- not 'stuff like this movie' " -- I don't think it's "ridiculous" to infer that public agit-prop and consumer complaint influence government and industry response.

Maren, I don't disagree with the idea of public agit-prop's importance/influence. What I'm saying is that the fast food industry was subjected to this type of pressure many years ago and way back then began advertising nutritional content and adding things like salads to the menu. It's just not plausible to me that this most recent film is going to add anything to this, it's already being done.

I'd also like to know exactly what the article above means when it says that fast food ingredients "were not made available to the public" in the 80's. My guess is what that means is that there wasn't an ingredients list printed on packaging or made available all over the restaurant. I know for a fact that it's been many years that one could ask clerks to provide such a listing of ingredients - I remember my parents actually doing this and getting the listing. You can argue all you want about whether making such lists more freely available is a useful thing, but I think that is a fairly fine point. The real issue is that anyone who wanted the info has been able to get it for a very long time, certainly since well before this latest cinematic masterpiece was created.

Also, nobody ever talks about the downside of shock-value, "I can scream my message louder than you" consciousness raising, but my guess is this film will turn off more moderate people, probably larger in numbers than the group of people who it "wins over." Is this a victory?

Edited June 2, 2004 by DrJ

[DrJ]

Take5 brings up the only potential legit point I can see potentially being driven home by the film:

Or just exactly what crap public school kids eat, and why that is so. That is really the most serious thing in the movie.

This is a major issue and very different than adults who choose to eat crap 24/7. Kids don't have the same choices, they don't know any better (or maybe they do but obviously they have less impulse control), and for many parents school lunch is the only feasible option to feed their kids. So non-nutritious school lunches are a MAJOR inexcusable public health blight and I will get behind anyone who is out to fix this problem. Two thumbs up here (although even then I must say I've heard at least 3-4 NPR pieces about this issue in the last year alone, not to mention pieces in other less reputable media outlets, so again, is this really a previously unexposed problem? Is not the real issue that people KNOW it's an issue but seem short on creative, sustainable solutions?).

Anyway, I say let's spend our time and energy talking about how to protect our kids from these types of legitimate evils, and NOT spend it trying to "protect" Joe Slug from that evil Quarter Pounder stalking him around the strip mall...

[take5]

Anyway, I say let's spend our time and energy talking about how to protect our kids from these types of legitimate evils, and NOT spend it trying to "protect" Joe Slug from that evil Quarter Pounder stalking him around the strip mall.

Again, that's NOT the point of the movie. Have you seen it?

[maren]

I'd also like to know exactly what the article above means when it says that fast food ingredients "were not made available to the public" in the 80's. My guess is what that means is that there wasn't an ingredients list printed on packaging or made available all over the restaurant. I know for a fact that it's been many years that one could ask clerks to provide such a listing of ingredients - I remember my parents actually doing this and getting the listing. You can argue all you want about whether making such lists more freely available is a useful thing, but I think that is a fairly fine point. The real issue is that anyone who wanted the info has been able to get it for a very long time, certainly since well before this latest cinematic masterpiece was created.

Maybe McDonalds WASN'T entirely standardized across the country -- and the availability of the nutritional brochure varied from state to state? What I do know is that it wasn't available to me in NYC in 1983 (I was pregnant and looking to rationalize and indulge Big Mac cravings! No such "luck"!). The quote I posted is part of an affidavit (provided to a libel lawsuit) written by Texas Asst AG recounting the history of actions several states, including Texas and New York, jointly undertook to get chain restaurants to provide nutritional info to consumers. The AGs wanted it to be on the actual packaging of each item, but settled for a poster or brochures.

BTW, it does seem to take constant pressure to keep McDonalds honest: they recently settled in a $12.5M lawsuit about failing to disclose the continued use of beef tallow in french fries (they'd been saying they'd switched entirely to vegetarian preparation).

[Jazzmoose]

Take5 brings up the only potential legit point I can see potentially being driven home by the film:

Or just exactly what crap public school kids eat, and why that is so. That is really the most serious thing in the movie.

This is a major issue and very different than adults who choose to eat crap 24/7. Kids don't have the same choices, they don't know any better (or maybe they do but obviously they have less impulse control)...

Well, that's the point of the advertising complaint, Tony. Ronald McDonald and the Hamburgler aren't aimed at adults, they're aimed at kids. McDonald's markets themselves as the ideal place for kids, and kids grow up thinking it's wonderful. Unlike the consumers they affect, large companies in America today can be quite patient as they "grow" their customers. By the time they're adults, these customers don't even remember the ads directly, they only know that eating at McDonald's feels good, even though the food has all the taste and nutrition of wet cardboard. Sure, we as adults can overcome our childhood programming, but it takes serious effort. I'm not saying any adult is blameless for sucking down fast food, only that this is the way we've been programmed to eat, by advertising (and an assist from school lunches...), and this is the path of least resistance.

[Jazzmoose]

As far as the Atkins diet goes, I won't really knock it, for two reasons. First, my wife was diabetic, and as Tony mentions, the diet she shifted to several years ago was quite similar to the Atkins diet, and I'm sure it saved her life. She dropped over 100 pounds and no longer even has to take medication. She still monitors her blood sugar on a weekly basis, but it is always close to normal now. Secondly, out of boredom, I actually did a casual read on a book on the Atkins diet and found out that it wasn't the deepfried steak and cheese, banish the veggies diet that the comedians make it out to be. It, as I said, is much more like the recommended diet my wife received when she was diagnosed with diabetes.

Of course, the first thing that occurs to me when someone says they are going on a diet is that they're wasting their time, as the word "on" implies that at some point they are going "off" the diet. That tells me they just don't get it yet...

[DrJ]

Jazzmoose, I grew up seeing Ronald McDonald ads and going to McDonalds simply does not "feel good" to me on any level. In fact, I think like many (most?) people who eat fast food on occasion, I end up feeling a tremendous amount of conflict and guilt about it...as I think about it, nobody I know wants to admit they ever eat fast food, but with 333 gajillion sold, SOMEBODY is eating at these places! Anyway, I don't think it's a "feel good" thing on that level, or at least a straightforward one.

Fundamentally, I also don't buy the "programming" argument and I'll tell you why. First, the whole Skinnerean stimulus-response explanation of human behavior is far too simplistic. We're not lab rats...we do things for many reasons, based on the interplay of many influences and cues.

Second and related (and more importantly), my parents taught me the difference between going to Mickey D's for a hamburger occasionally after a ball game and using it as my primary nutritional source. That is the stuff that is missing that accounts for kids growing up over-eating fast food, the lack of parental guidance to put the ads in proper perspective. If you sit a kid in front of a TV and show them McDonalds commercials without any reprieve or parental guidance, well sure, that's what they come to know. So just don't do that and they'll be OK.

Finally, it's worth mentioning the majority of the population in fact does NOT go crazy with fast food, they go crazy with FOOD period - it's overeating at all levels and locations, whether at home, in "finer" or "healthier" restaurants, etc. It's a pervasive, serious problem. Just visit another country and compare portion sizes and you'll see, and this applies in all restaurants, in people's homes, etc.

So it's not about fast food, it's about TOO MUCH food and bad choices throughout the day, no matter the setting. That and a complete lack of exercise. I'm not trying to defend fast food companies, but I am trying to encourage people to look at the issue more broadly and get at root causes. If you focus on villifying the fast food chains, IMHO you're missing the bigger picture and nothing much will change.

[Soulstation1]

i just saw this movie this afternoon

the entire mcdonalds chain pulls in over $40 mill a day

the children's size cup in the u s is the regular size cup in europe

if you orded the "extra large" supersize. it adds up to the following

1/2 lb of fries

1/2 gallon of soda

they talked to a guy who has consume almost 20,000 big macs in his life-time

he ate around 725-750 last year

ss1

i need a salad

Edited June 5, 2004 by Soulstation1

[Jazzmoose]

they talked to a guy who has consume almost 20,000 big macs in his life-time

he ate around 725-750 last year

I'll admit to a weakness for that shitty product "The Big Mac". Don't know why. I think I had three last year. So far this year, one. Damn...