Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super Size Me (2004)

This is topic Super Size Me (2004) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000781

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-01-2004, 08:47 AM:

No one else has seen this yet?

This is an annoying film. Healthy man eats nothing but food from McDonald's for thirty days. Man is no longer healthy. Duh. Anyone who would have predicted a different outcome is a moron. Hell, anyone who eats every meal of every day at _any_ food service establishment for any length of time is probably not going to improve his health. That's why not many people actually do this sort of thing.

What's worse is that the film raises a number of potentially interesting and loosely-connected issues related to poor eating and exercise habits, and then proceeds to address them in a cursory way and then not return to them for the remainder of the film.

This guy occasionally makes an interesting point, and is occasionally somewhat humorous, but does the world really need another Michael Moore? And why does this sort of "performance art" always get classified as "documentary" (which it isn't)?

*yawn*

[sleep]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-01-2004, 10:36 AM:

I really enjoyed this film. Yeah, the outline is obvious. But to take a simple idea, and make it completly entertaining for 80 minutes is truely a feat. I can't recall being boared at any point durring the film. I cut my fast food by about half after seeing it.

The group I went with decided to make the movie more interactive by visiting MickeyD's right before the show. [puke]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2004, 12:18 AM:

I probably won't get to see this feature until it hits the video store shelves. There are accusations among some critics that the show does some selective truth telling in the style of Michael Moore or Oliver Stone. But I think it is overall a good thing that this movie is bringing a lot more attention to just how needlessly unhealthy food companies are making a lot of products.

Everyone knows that it is not a healthy thing to eat hamburgers and fries on a regular basis. But people do need to know about all the dangerous, cheap ingredients being put into many other foods you buy at the grocery store. Just a few Oreo cookies will give you the same amount of blood mud intake as a Big Mac Meal.

High fructose corn syrup is a leading culprit in America's obesity epidemic. It is found in just about every food that has some sweet quality to it. Your body doesn't break it down as easily as the more expensive cane and beet sugars the food companies used to use.

Partially hydrogenated oils should be banned outright. It is one of the main things which makes heart disease the number one killer of Americans. That crap is in all kinds of stuff --even your "fat free" salad dressing.

If Americans have better, safer foods to eat, it might put a dent in the cost of health care --which right now is just spiraling further and further out of control.

Posted by Rich Granata (Member # 2285) on 06-17-2004, 12:39 PM:

I checked this out at the county theatre yesterday and it was very interesting. The guy is much easier to watch than Michael Moore. The movie is not just him eating. He has some great interviews and he shows some shots of a magnificent gastric bypass surgery. [Smile]

Over the 30 days he consumed about 35 lb. of sugar...Over a pound a day [Eek!]

He also goes into some schools and ties our deep-rooted calorie love into what kids get (or don't get)in school. Even though no one actually solely eats McDos datafterday, the points he made are very suprising. If only he didn't have to destroy his liver doing it.

American sizes. I wonder, when more people have seen this one if it will affect theatres at all. I Dunno, we do have a 64 Oz size.

Interestingly, the food affected his mood (and his penis??)Needless to say, My friends and I ate a healthy lunch afterwards. A decent documentary, crappy movie.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-26-2004, 11:18 PM:

I just saw this at the Tampa Theatre. Picture Tour To Follow soon.

I have made it a quest to NEVER eat fast fod again. This also will include food from the Mugs & Movies at my theatre. OMG. This movie shocked me. He hurt his liver after 9 days. MY current health situation prohibits me from eating fatty foods but I still do it. After seeing this film, I have checked myself. I am 240 and 6'6". With 25% body fat, I am in no shape to do an experiment like his.

Overall, a very good movie. A lot of laughs.

4/5

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-29-2004, 02:37 PM:

Yes, this was a contrived and smart-ass film, but I think it was pretty entertaining. And there were some amusing tidbits, like McDonald's stating how harmful their processed food is, and classifying once-per-week customers as "heavy users". Assuming it's all true anyway. Scott is right, Mr. Spurlock is reminiscent of Michael Moore, but in this case Moore could not have pulled off the same stunt. [Wink]

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 06-30-2004, 06:38 PM:

"Mr. Spurlock is reminiscent of Michael Moore, but in this case Moore could not have pulled off the same stunt."

It very much appears that Michael Moore has really pulled off the same stunt. No one working in film could be more be deserving of being given the title of "Super Sized."

"Super Size Me" is remarkable in a number of ways, the most extraordnary being its gross to date. But it has gotten people talking about the issue and regardless what McDonald's says, it is probably responsible for making the question "Would you like to Super Size that?" go away.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-30-2004, 08:28 PM:

Next is the sequel, Wendy and the "biggie"

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-05-2004, 07:16 PM:

I saw Super Size Me yesterday, and what struck me were the reaction of the audience. Every time an obese person was shown on screen, most of the audience would gasp in disgust. Some of these people watching the movie were not exactly trim themselves. Also, at one point in the film, various soda cup sizes are shown to illustrate how they have grown over the years. Again, more gasps and head-shaking-in-disbelief. Where have these people been? Was everyone in the audience new to the country? It amazes me how far removed people believe they are from things shown on a screen.

-Adam

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 08-04-2004, 01:55 AM:

Just got back from seeing this really awesome movie! Dude, I'm so gonna cut down fast food and sodas! Probably all together for a long time. It has put me in the state of mind to do something.... and I've never felt that why about a movie(documentary)... So I'm sooo gonna workout. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2004, 11:14 PM:

I was finally able to rent a copy of "Super Size Me!" on DVD.

Overall, I found the movie funny and entertaining. It's a solid three stars out of four. The show deserves extra credit for all the attention Spurlock's eating stunt and this movie brought to this dangerous, costly health problem in America.

I was a little suspicious of some parts of the movie. Perhaps that's why it left some viewers with a negative feeling about the show as just some annoying stunt. For example, Spurlock takes 20 minutes to stuff down his first super sized meal. He winds up vomiting out of his vehicle window onto the pavement. I don't know. Sure, the moment was funny, but I'm not as tall and heavy as Morgan Spurlock and I've never thrown up from being overstuffed by a super-sized McDonald's meal. Mind you, I rarely ever eat at McDonalds.

Much of the information director Morgan Spurlock shared about America's fat problem was already common knowledge. Still, I was pretty floored by that United States graphic in the video's opening showing the rising rates of obesity in America over just the past 23 years. Then I laughed pretty hard at what he called America's reaction: "we sued the bastards." That is the American tradition. Don't take any damned personal responsibility. Just blame it on everything else.

Most people were angered by the deliberate actions from the tobacco industry in marketing to kids with "Joe Camel." This movie made me pretty pissed about McDonalds' own insidious ad campaigns to children. McDonalds also has the most effective (by far) storefront identity. You can recognize their standard full size pylon signs at distances of more than 2 miles. No other major store chain in the world can make that claim.

I was even more angry about all the junk food being sold in schools. Many people here in Lawton are fighting to get sodas and junk food removed from the schools. But the school administration will not budge. They just give excuses about higher property taxes and shit like that. Want to properly fund education? Fire a shitload of school administrators! Bloated administration is the problem when it comes to lack of funding for schools.

The movie was at its best when it delivered solid information about the actions of the food industry and our government's apathy and willingness to look the other way, or be a partner in crime with "the bastards." The movie needed this kind of stuff because it would not have sustained itself alone just with video of Spurlock eating and having doctors tell him he's poisoning his liver.

Still there were other points missed in the movie that the DVD does cover in its extras. The best extra on the DVD is a 25 minute interview with Eric Schlosser, author of the book "Fast Food Nation". They cover the marketing motives and the changes that happen when a nice small business hamburger stand grows into an uncaring corporate monolith. The two cover the point on why it cost so damned much more to buy healthy foods at the grocery store than the junk. Overall, the movie and this interview makes the whole thing a bit more complete.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-23-2004, 09:40 PM:

You're objecting to McDonald's having an easily recognizable sign? What's wrong with that?

quote: Scott Norwood
And why does this sort of "performance art" always get classified as "documentary" (which it isn't)?

They're not? Why not? Some of you seem to be under the false assumption that a documentary must present a balanced view without taking sides. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The best have always had a definite point of view.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-29-2004, 08:48 AM:

I have no objection to documentaries that take a position on the subject which they are documenting, but I do think that anything claiming to be a "documentary" has an obligation to present the subject fairly, without witholding pertinent information or attempting to mislead the audience. SSM and Michael Moore's films aren't just one-sided; they're intentionally misleading. If they weren't billed as "documentaries," I would have no problem with them.

Posted by Barrett Jarabek (Member # 2727) on 11-11-2004, 10:09 PM:

i thought this movie was entertaining. the thing that bugged me though, did anyone see his "last meal" before his experiment?? this guy went from straight vegetarian, health freak...to McDonalds everyday. My last meal would have been steak, potatoes and a budlight. Notice he was puking on the 2nd day. If anyone else out there has been on vacation or works long hours...you know you can hit the drive through more than a few times without getting sick.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2004, 11:18 PM:

quote: Steve Kraus
You're objecting to McDonald's having an easily recognizable sign? What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with a sign being legible at far distances, even the McDonalds sign. There's nothing wrong with having a very effective advertising campaign. The problem I have is most of what they sell is very bad for people. McDonalds is really great at selling people dangerous food. They're better than most fast food chains at doing it. If you have a car load of kids and they go ape shit when they see that McDonalds sign two miles away you might be tempted to stop there just for some peace and quiet.

Sure, we have the freedom to avoid fast food places like McDonalds. We can try (with a certain level of futility) to only buy healthy foods at the grocery store. The vast majority of people don't do this. Many have no health insurance. When they wind up with heart disease and gigantic medical bills the tab gets passed on to you and me. Health care costs skyrocket. Insurance costs go through the roof. Millions more join the ranks of the uninsured and enjoy the American "hope you don't get sick or you'll get bankrupted" system of health care.

It is real easy for us to pick on smokers. Here in Oklahoma, we just passed a 4-cent per cigarette tax (80 cents per pack). Do any politicians out there have the balls to pick on people with shitty diets? Do they have the balls to take on the powerful food industry lobby? Not right now. I think it will take our medical system going bust for anyone to do anything about it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2004, 11:54 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If you have a car load of kids and they go ape shit when they see that McDonalds sign two miles away you might be tempted to stop there just for some peace and quiet.

Nope. I'd be tempted to park the car, lock the doors from the outside (kids who go apeshit can't figure out how to unlock it) and set the car on fire.

Nobody goes apeshit in my car.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-12-2004, 07:33 AM:

Apeshit or not, McDonald's (Wendy's, Burger King, et al.) is under no obligation to sell healthy food. As long as they aren't misrepresenting the health benefits (or lack thereof) of consuming their "food," then I don't see the problem. As a practical matter, eating fast food on an occasional basis isn't likely to have a material effect on one's health, anyway.

If you don't like the company or it's products, don't buy from them.

As for Super Size Me, I really wish that someone from McDonald's had actually responded to the director and said something to the effect of "We don't apologize for what we do--we aren't a health-food store, we don't claim that anything we sell will improve anyone's health, and we aren't forcing anyone to consume our food. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else." It would have been more honest than simply refusing to return his phone calls.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-12-2004, 12:18 PM:

McDonalds is only one of the more visible aspects of what I consider to be a very terrible problem that is growing worse. They are the lightning rod to a much larger problem. I would say the problem with America's collective diet is a more dangerous and costly problem than smoking.

quote: Scott Norwood
If you don't like the company or it's products, don't buy from them.

That's all fine and good if you actually have a choice. If you read the labels on most foods sold at the grocery store, you'll find most of the food on the shelves being harmful in some way or another. It is pretty difficult to find foods lacking partially hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup or high amounts of sodium. It's getting to the point where you have the choice of just eatting shitty foods or starving. Those who have a lot of money to spend can go to the "organic foods store" and spend at least double to triple the price for foods that are relatively safe.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-12-2004, 09:31 PM:

Actually I've found the prices at the local Whole Foods aren't that bad at least for the items I buy. Kashi cereals, which are awesome, are 2.49 a box, while at the Albertsons, they're double that! I buy chips and popcorn there,same prices as supermarket. Milk seems to be about the same if not slightly more expensive. Fruit and veggies the same as I can tell. At other places I can see price gouging though.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-13-2005, 03:53 PM:

Hmmm...I've seen the documentary twice now...thats right Scott, it is a DOCUMENTARY...unlike Michael Moore films, which are propoganda.

I dispute the claims that this documentary was some how tainted in the way Michael Moore films are.

The idea of the film, as presented, was from a court case in which the reason for McDonald's victory was examined and documented.

One method of examining a hypothosis is to take it to its absurd extreme. In this case, living on McDonalds for three meals a day for a month. Only taking the Super-Size choice when it was offered (and you may note it was a suprising few times given the approximately 90 meals consummed). The director/star even explained this in the film.

As to getting sick from eating that first super-sized meal (it was right at the beginning of the experiment)...I can easily believe that. If your body isn't accustomed to eating a particular type of food and you suddenly and briskly eat that food, you can get quite sick...it has happened to me. Just recently, I went to a seafood restaurant that serves really top notch seafood (eaten their myself several times before)...this night, however, I must have ODed on the Maryland Crabs because I got the "McGurggles" and was able to stop. My wife was eating the same food and didn't feel the same. In Super Size me...the option of not finishing was not available, his body did the next best thing, it puked.

While most people would indeed think that eating at Mickey Ds three times a day would not be healthy, most would not have predicted the results from the medical exams...the doctors sure didn't or do you feel that there are some doctor's findings that the film is not showing?

During the travels they do find a guy that is not particularly overweight that has been eating massive quantities of Big Macs for some time. Something that one would think not normal either. Then again, there are always the smoker examples of the person that lives to 100+ and smoked every day since they could walk (or since their teens). It does't make it the norm but sure it happens.

As documentaries go, I give it a 4 out of 5 stars. It was a nifty experiment, there was good follow-through and it was interestingly presented.

I do NOT think McDonalds is at fault with their menu or advertising. People stuff the crap into their mouths by their own choice. The documentary did show that some of the "healthy" alternatives offered at McDonalds are not as healthy as they would, at first, appear....kinda like popcorn being healthy until you pop it in coconut oil, smother it in some topping (butter hopefully) and salt it down.

People need to be responsible for their own actions and not blame the other guy for their poor choices. Industry normally only provide what people want. If people don't want unhealthy fast food and stop purchasing it, McDonalds and the rest will make what they are interested in buying. They want to stay in business too. It isn't the manufacturer's job to force health on people that don't seem to want it.

Perhaps if a "Healthy Hendersons" rapidly prepared food chain was created and people flogged to them we would see the current fast food joints bring out their healthy food. They will make and sell what people will buy.

Again, ****/***** for me.

[ 08-14-2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 08-14-2005, 01:23 PM:

I just saw this on cable recently. The problem with Spurlock's experiment is that it's bad science or, at best, grossly incomplete science. The audience doesn't know what his diet was during the previous 30 days nor what his normal exercise was. And why did he have to add the "no exercise" bit to the experiment anyway? A better experiment would have included, say, 30 individuals with a wide variety of ages, dietary habits and exercise schedules going into the experiment. I see a problem with the fact that Spurlock has created an "education" edition of this movie and wants to distribute it to schools. Sure, kids need enlightenment about their dietary habits, but should we also give legitimacy to his bad science in our classrooms?

Nevertheless, while he's clearly trying to promote an agenda (like, say, big-bad corporations must be punished for what their customers do with their products), he's a very watchabe guy and I'll consider his point of view much more openly than, say, one of Mr. Moore's agendas.

I recently found a contrary point of view in a movie from a young slacker who decided to try a similar experiment. And it's a little entertaining when this guy is refused an interview with Mr. Spurlock time after time.

http://www.bowlingformorgan.com

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-14-2005, 04:58 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
The audience doesn't know what his diet was during the previous 30 days nor what his normal exercise was.

Greg,
Perhaps you got the edited version at the "Family Films" Store or something but what I got out of it is as follows.....

The experiment was conducted under a Medical Doctors guidance, he had a blood chemistry done before he switched to all MAC that showed he was pretty normal and we know he was primarily vegitarian before the switch, he didn't alter the way he had been living except for the switch exclusevly to MAC food, and it made a definate BAD change in his blood chemistry. Need we know more... I don't think so... anyone with two ounces of brains would know the stuff is bad for you. I cut back on my already cut back intake of the stuff after watching the film. That I might live a few extra years longer as a result I would attribute to seeing the film.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-14-2005, 05:50 PM:

Greg,

I'll grant that the no-excersise rule was one that was not needed. Accoding to the movie, it was based on the average American's daily excersise. However, with an experiment such as this, one should change just one thing...that is, the food intake, not the entire life style.

Do you think that he dumped his weight to make it artificially go up? He WAS in his recommened weight based on his height. In this counter film you linked to...that was not the case...he went from Super Sized to grossly oversized. Who knows what he did immediately prior but he was not at a proper weight. It is pretty easy to bloat or cause one's chemicals to go wacko...it is much harder to get them right again.

As to his "agenda"...I didn't get from the film that big-bad corporations need to be punished. In fact, a lawyer brought the court case first that McDonalds was somehow responsible for two girls over weight problem.

As to being refused an interview with Mr. Spurlock...it is much harder to have a single individual's time coincide with anothers than a "public relations" offical for a corporation to do so. The man was out promoting his film. He could tried for an on-camera interview with Ray Dolby and had a difficult time as well. In Mr. Spurlock's film, he was just trying to talk to McDonalds public relations official. Personally, I found that aspect less interesting any way.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 08-14-2005, 09:56 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Perhaps you got the edited version at the "Family Films" Store or something...

What? I am shocked and insulted by this! [Smile]

A film is either worth seeing or it is not. Yes, I refuse to see a lot of movies. But after-market editors are useless.

Okay... so I didn't take notes while watching the movie but I think a lot of things were implied without actually being stated. That's going to make a lot of people "see" things that were never there and will always give Spurlock an escape when someone accuses him of saying something which was merely implied. It's implied, for example, that he has a "normal" diet before the experiment but the audience knows very few specifics. Meanwhile, the MacDonald's diet is portrayed much more specifically. And, while the doctors are shocked at symptoms like depression and liver problems and it is implied that the "McDiet" caused this, it's never proven and the doctors never clearly say that the diet is the cause. Why not find out more before releasing the movie? Because of the Sundance submission deadline? (I don't know if that's the real reason but I'll pretend that it's implied.)

But, hey, you gotta hand it to this guy. He's getting a lot of fame and fortune off of the painfully obvious. His next project was a "performance documentary" where he and his girlfriend tried to survive on minimum-wage jobs for 30 days and, Presto! They found out that it's really difficult. Genius!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-14-2005, 11:49 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
What? I am shocked and insulted by this! A film is either worth seeing or it is not. Yes, I refuse to see a lot of movies. But after-market editors are useless.

Greg,
Am just teasing you..... I know you'd never go to one of those places....

But seriously I vote that you eat ONLY McDonalds for a month straight and then get back to us and let us know how you're doin....

Mark

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-15-2005, 07:06 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
They will make and sell what people will buy.

My father owned a fast food restaurant in the 1960s and he often commented that you could put a fancy name on horse shit and people would flock to buy it. I've seen the film and good or bad science not withstanding, it brings out a good point. Americans are to time starved to eat healthy.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-15-2005, 05:12 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
Americans are to time starved to eat healthy.

How long does it take to eat an apple or a banana. I actually just made a fat-free chicken stir fry for 2 in less than 20 minutes for under $10.

As for the movie, I thought it was incredibly boring. The "experiment" was highly invalid. First of all, he did purposely reduce his exercise. Second, he was eating WAY TOO MUCH food for a person of his size. He would have gained the same weight if he ate that many calories worth of apples every day.

The cause of the "Obesity Epidemic" is two-fold. First, that stupid Body Mass Index chart that says people like Shaquille O'Neal are obese. Second, due to video games, people in general and kids in particular don't get enough exercise.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-15-2005, 06:35 PM:

Yeah, I agree... I was gonna say, in the time it takes you to order and eat a big mac, large coke and frys, it would take the same time to order and eat a grilled chicken sandwich, large diet coke or iced tea, and salad with fat free dressing.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-15-2005, 10:12 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
The audience doesn't know what his diet was during the previous 30 days nor what his normal exercise was.

It's been awhile since I watched this movie. But I remember the fellow getting an excellent bill of health at the start of the experiment, that it was stated he exercised regularly and his girlfriend (or wife) was a vegan chef and he ate mostly what she cooked.

quote: Lyle Romer
Second, he was eating WAY TOO MUCH food for a person of his size.

While that may be true, Spurlock was eating the typical serving size featured at lots of restaurants -really huge portions. He was observing one of the basic rules of the experiment: whenever asked if he would like to super size his meal he would have to say yes.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-15-2005, 11:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
that it was stated he exercised regularly

Correct, and this is one of the major problems that I had with the movie. If you exercise regularly and then suddenly stop exercising AT ALL there are bound to be changes to your metabolism.

quote: Bobby Henderson
whenever asked if he would like to super size his meal he would have to say yes.

And this is the other major problem. Why did he make this a rule? Isn't it the consumer's choice to say "No" to the question. The only time I have ever supersized anything is if I am sharing with somebody else and it's a better deal to get 1 supersize than 2 small. If somebody is stupid enough to choose to eat 3 supersized meals (McDonalds or the equivalent amount of anything else) per day for a month, it's not McDonald's fault that they gain weight.

If I decide to make myself fried chicken at home every day and pig out 3 times a day, I will gain weight and not be too healthy and it's my fault. It is not McDonald's fault when people (who have access to nutritional information) choose to ignore it and eat too much crap that is bad for them.

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 08-16-2005, 02:46 AM:

Some of you in this forum don't seem to grasp the whole point of this documentary. The message is that we are all responsible for the choices we make, we should eat a proper diet and exercise regualarly. At the same time, corporate GIANTS like McDonalds should serve their patrons better by offering more healthier choices. Corporate fast-food giants like McDonalds will be around forever because no matter what happens, people will always buy their food. It's up to McDonalds to offer some more choices that will give their "Billions Served" a fighting chance of leading a healthier lifestyle with their food. When you are feeding "billions" I'd say you have a moral obligation to give a damn about the health of your patrons rather than dismissing themselves as a business thats just trying to make as much money as possible.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-16-2005, 08:33 AM:

I agree that any food service establishment has a moral obligation to not sell food which is known to be truly unsafe. If, for example, it were found that McDonalds' french fries caused cancer when eaten in typical quantities, then I'd agree completely that the company should immediately pull them off the market and reforumlate them as a safe product.

I don't agree, however, that the company has any obligation (moral, legal, or otherwise) to serve "healthful" food. They're not a health-food store, nor do they claim to be. No one from McDonalds is claiming that eating their food in large quantities will help people to lose weight or improve one's general health. A single, occasional (say, once per month) meal at McDonalds will not cause substantial health issues for anyone who is in good health. The company is selling "convenience," not "health" or "wholesomeness." Their menu choices reflect this.

It would be one thing if McDonalds (et al.) tried to claim that their food had some health benefits or if they tried to hide the fact that much of what they sell is high in saturated fat and has other "bad" attributes. They aren't doing this, however, and anyone with a brain ought to be able to figure out that a full-time diet of McDonalds food is simply not smart.

People need to take some personal responsibility for what they put into their bodies and not blame others for providing food choices which may not be appropriate for them.

As for the film, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the other posters here. Yes, it has some entertainment value and, yes, it may have some value if it encourages people to reconsider their diet and excercise choices, but there really isn't much scientific basis for most of the claims that Spurlock makes, and the whole thing just seems like an unfair indictment of a single company for providing food which is, for the most part, not very healthy if eaten in large quantities.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-16-2005, 05:53 PM:

quote: William Valdes
corporate GIANTS like McDonalds should serve their patrons better by offering more healthier choices

Wrong!

Corporations cannot by themselves cause this level of social change. Corporations by their very mandate, must increase stock holders profit.

If people want popcorn when they go to the movies, theatres must serve popcorn.

Does the funnel cake guy at the state fair need to make his product healthier? Nope.

Does Krispy Kream need to offer a whole wheat doughnut? Not if nobody wants to buy it.

I'll bet that no matter how much "healthy food" McDonalds introduces and promotes, people still want to eat a Big Mac, Large Fries and a big ass Coke.

You want something healthier, Subway is right down the block, Safeway has a salad bar. Oh, pack a lunch.

Education is the only way to make people eat healthier. I like fast food. I grew to weight 300 lbs. I went to Weight Watcher's and learned how to eat healthier. Now I eat fast food about once every two months. Now I weigh 220 lbs.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-16-2005, 09:47 PM:

I certainly agree that a big part of the equation is personal responsibility for one's own diet. However, I also believe our culture sends a not so subtle message that people who try to eat healthy are pansies.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-16-2005, 09:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
our culture sends a not so subtle message that people who try to eat healthy are pansies

Well, anyone who would avoid eating healthy food out of fear of being called a pansy IS a pansy!

Really, for someone to blame McDonalds for their obesity is just absurd. Who's in control of your life? You, or McDonalds?

I haven't seen the movie because, honestly, I already know that I would be a fool to eat 3 meals a day at McDonalds. I don't need this movie to tell me that. I guess some people do though. [Shrug]

Nevertheless, I enjoy the occasional Big Mac as much as anyone. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-16-2005, 10:52 PM:

quote:
Well, anyone who would avoid eating healthy food out of fear of being called a pansy IS a pansy!

I agree. Nevertheless, the message is still being projected.

I had to change my diet for health reasons -namely high cholesterol from a typical bachelor's diet that got boosted to very scary levels from steroids to treat chronic bronchitis. Still, some of my coworkers (especially the more blue collar types) jokingly gave me a bunch of crap when I started drinking sugar free sodas and bringing salads for lunch. One guy bites into his Big Mac® and asks, "how's that rabbit food, Bobby?" I flipped the middle finger in response. Now my cholesterol is at a much better level. And most of my coworkers are doing the diet soda thing as well.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-17-2005, 06:18 AM:

David, see the movie...I think you'll get more out of it than you think...the 3-meals a day experiment is taking things to the extreme but the other stuff is quite interesting too.

Anyone that thinks this movie is about how it is McDonalds fault (the nation has become much more large) has clearly seen a different movie than I have (twice now). About the only thing that it points the finger at McDonalds is the rather poor record of making its nutrition facts available at the individual stores so the consumer has the ability to know what their intake would be on each item and their public relations person that doesn't return calls.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-18-2005, 10:11 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
If you exercise regularly and then suddenly stop exercising AT ALL there are bound to be changes to your metabolism.

Lyle,

I don't remember them saying that he stopped exercising.... If he did it had to be because he didn't feel good or have much energy level, and on that kind of diet I could easily believe that.

Mark

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 08-19-2005, 02:14 AM:

Hey look guys, I'm not trying to say every restaurant HAS to care about the health of their patrons. Every corporation ultimately has stock holders and blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, but all I'm saying is McDonalds is huge. HUGE!!! And they're not just huge, they're very powerful. Theyre not little funnel cake salesmen. Theyre a worldwide brand. Would it really kill em' to offer some more choices that won't turn us all into fat tubs of lard? Does McDonalds food kill people? Not necessarily. But suppose it did, and people knew about it. Would people still eat there? Some wouldn't, A LOT still would. Ronald McDonald could dance in a commercial with armed terrorists and that still wouldn't stop them from making a big ass profit. I personally became addicted to soda at a young age and it made me gain a lot of weight. I don't blame anyone for it. I managed to lose weight and kick my habits by first switching to Diet coke. A lot of people buy diet cola and can't eat sugar-filled foods because they're diabetic. If Coca Cola can offer us healthier choices of their product and be successful why can't McDonalds? If they actually put some effort into adding healthy new alternatives, I'm sure they could sell enough to justify its existence. Even if stock prices don't shoot up after adding them, in the long run, i'm sure it would pay off. A company that cares about its consumers is just good business all around.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-19-2005, 05:28 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I don't remember them saying that he stopped exercising

Mark,

He absolutely did. It was part of the "experiment." It was towards the beginning of the movie. He even went so far as to start taking cabs everywhere so he wouldn't walk more than the average American.

-Lyle

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-19-2005, 05:44 AM:

Lyle is correct on that one...he did curb his activity to simulate the average American rather than use his own personal habits that lead him up to the experiment. As I've stated before, that I don't think was proper for this experiment. The only thing he should have changed was his food...from what ever lead to his "normal" fitness to how McDonalds changed it.

As to McDonalds responsibility to provide healthier choices because of their size....two things.

1st and most important...what does that have to do with a review of the film? That is a personal position that belongs in Yak or something.

2nd McDonalds has no obligation to provide any food that they don't feel will provide the best profit. Again, if people only wanted to eat health-food, I guarantee you that they would provide it in abundance.

As to your other comment about what people would and wouldn't do...McDonalds has changed their menu a bit partly due to the movie (eliminating the "Super Size") and offering more options in the health department...which they wouldn't do if it wasn't in their best interest on the bottom line. You think that if McDonalds looked like a terroist supporter that their business wouldn't go into the tank? Guess again.

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 08-19-2005, 03:51 PM:

I'm just stating my opinion on the point that this film was trying to make. It's pointless for me to keep on arguing about it. Clearly, everyone has their own opinions on this and is entitled to them. If anyone thought my posts were disruptive or deviated from the subject matter, I apologize.

All opinions on McDonalds aside, I thought this was a well done documentary. It kept to the facts and kept me entertained at the same time. I think we're starting to see a trend of documentaries that are actually fun to watch. I'd take another documentary like this than another lame remake any day.