Svend Karlsen sponsored by McDonalds?...

[Sinister]

I just want to point out a couple of things for this argument. First off, they guy that did Supersize Me was a vegan. Who was also married to a vegan chef. Now since he had a vegan chef for a wife, I am going to assume that he ate pretty good and was able to supplement for the nutrients he missed. So overall he was probably a pretty healthy guy. Now when you change your diet so dramatically and quickly, there are going to be complications. Especially if you change from no meat or animal products in your diet to allowing them in your diet. Any vegan/vegeterian who hasnt eaten meat in say a year, who decides to start eating meat again will have to slowly add meat to there diet. Otherwise they will get sick. Your body just wouldnt be used to processing meat. So to wrap it up, they guy that did supersize me, was a bad subject for the test. They should have picked a normal adult, who ate a normal american diet. But instead to push there opinion/point, they used someone who would have a bad reaction to just adding meat there diet. Hell the guy could have eaten 90/10 ground beef on whole wheat bread with lots of veggies and fruits and he still would have had health issues.

Assuming that vegans are healthy in-general is a terrible assumption to make. No disrespect to you intended. But in 3 years of working in the fitness and nutrition Industry, from my experience they and vegetarians are typically some of the least healthy people we come across.

And I don't know who this "they" is that you're referring to. Morgan was basically behind the whole thing himself. He picked himself as the subject.

 

[Noskill]

I gotta agree with KK here. Most vegans I know look like they would break a hip bone if they slipped on an ice spot on the sidewalk. Just like an old lady.

And see the movie again. He wasn't married, it was her girlfriend and he wasn't vegan before the movie, but after the movie her vegan girlfriend said she would put him on a vegan organico detox diet. I guess she meant she would have him eat mud and sprouts.

 

[rickdog]

I gotta agree with KK here. Most vegans I know look like they would break a hip bone if they slipped on an ice spot on the sidewalk. Just like an old lady.

And see the movie again. He wasn't married, it was her girlfriend and he wasn't vegan before the movie, but after the movie her vegan girlfriend said she would put him on a vegan organico detox diet. I guess she meant she would have him eat mud and sprouts.

HAHAHAHA, I agree with you. Most of the vegans I see look like a Big Mac would do them some good. The majority of them, that I know, look extremely frail.

 

[#1can]

Assuming that vegans are healthy in-general is a terrible assumption to make. No disrespect to you intended. But in 3 years of working in the fitness and nutrition Industry, from my experience they and vegetarians are typically some of the least healthy people we come across.

And I don't know who this "they" is that you're referring to. Morgan was basically behind the whole thing himself. He picked himself as the subject.

this is beside the point. whether they are "healthy" or not, who cares. the point is, by changing from a vegan diet to an entirely mcdonalds diet is going to make you shit bricks and barf. period. nobody should be suprised that dude's body rejected the food.

 

[Grady]

this is beside the point. whether they are "healthy" or not, who cares. the point is, by changing from a vegan diet to an entirely mcdonalds diet is going to make you shit bricks and barf. period. nobody should be suprised that dude's body rejected the food.

Another unfair thing he did was drastically alter his caloric intake. He switched to eating what he normally eats to only eating McDonald's food, and look how it almost killed me. He downplays the caloric content by the following his assumption that most Americans just don't know that eating at McDonalds all day, and supersizing many of the meals, is a "normal" amount of calories. But you know what, I bet a lot of people know damn well that they are overconsuming calorie dense foods when they eat that often in McDs.

I'd like to see a Super Size Me II movie, where he eats 6,000 calories a day of tofu, rice, beans, nuts, garlic, and flax seed oil, and get the doctors to monitor his before & after physiology.

If he really wanted to be fair, he would have consumed the average amount of calories that he normally eats during the film. Something like... Breatfast: One EggMcMuffin & a coffee or a milk. Lunch: 1 Diet soda, medium fries, 2 cheesburgers. Dinner: Chicken w/salad, apple pie, diet soda. If he ate like that, I doubt he would have gained all that weight and become so sick.

But I guess that wasn't the point.

The point was to make money.

 

[ghostwipe]

If he really wanted to be fair, he would have consumed the average amount of calories that he normally eats during the film. Something like... .

You've got to be fucking kidding.

You want him to be fair to McDonald's? You think they've played fair with the world since they've been in business?

 

[yomon]

i just finished watching the movie and all i have to say is wow.

that guy really put himself through hell, but he was able to bring forth some really good information. some of you say he was mentaly instable to embark on such a adventure, but i see it as admirable because even though the fact that fast food is bad for you is common knowledge it really helps if it's pounded through the same mass media miltimedium as the bussinesses that promote it. Is it worth a human life? no, but think of how many lives are also taken yearly from the ignorance to this matter as well.

lol at the people that had no idea what a calorie was. This is the majior proble right here, most americans have next to no knowledge when it comes to thier own health besides what mass media tells them. which is really sad to say the least.

As for why the sales for McDonnalds actualy going up after this, it really is a no brainer why. One people don't listen to facts and tend to focus on the positive and disregard the negative, two, the guy was comming across as really scocialy buddy buddy anytime he was eating McDonald. This can only re-enforce the message that is it's socaily accceptable and fun to eat McDonalds, which is what McDonalds does everyday all year long. this is the only thing i dislike about the documentry. For if anyone was watching this brainlessly, as most americans watch thier TV, then the general subliminal message recieved is it's fun and cool to eat McDonnalds. hell even i was craving a burger by the end.

bottom line? In the end this was a double edged knife. To the general population it would only promote McDonalds and likly increas consumption due to thier mental conditioing while watching tv. While anyone who thinks about everything they see and question all information presented to them, like an intelegent indaviduals should, would walk away more knowledgable and likely reduce thier fast food cunsumption. But the biggest pluse here is that these knowledgable questioning people usualy take positions of power within america and if the person is any bit honerable, they will make descitions best for the general public or at the least promote a healthier liftstyle.

so short term bad effect, long term good affects.

 

[yomon]

You've got to be fucking kidding.

You want him to be fair to McDonald's? You think they've played fair with the world since they've been in business?

a awsome point that needs to be amplified. also think of the intelegence of the avergae target viewer, things need to be exadurated for them.

 

[Sinister]

this is beside the point. whether they are "healthy" or not, who cares. the point is, by changing from a vegan diet to an entirely mcdonalds diet is going to make you shit bricks and barf. period. nobody should be suprised that dude's body rejected the food.

Completely irrelevant considering he wasn't a vegan before the documentary was made. As has been stated in this thread already.

I'd like to see a Super Size Me II movie, where he eats 6,000 calories a day of tofu, rice, beans, nuts, garlic, and flax seed oil, and get the doctors to monitor his before & after physiology.

If he really wanted to be fair, he would have consumed the average amount of calories that he normally eats during the film. Something like... Breatfast: One EggMcMuffin & a coffee or a milk. Lunch: 1 Diet soda, medium fries, 2 cheesburgers. Dinner: Chicken w/salad, apple pie, diet soda. If he ate like that, I doubt he would have gained all that weight and become so sick.

But I guess that wasn't the point.

The point was to make money.

HA HA HA!! Get out of here with that "calorie is a calorie" jive. If you honestly believe that where body composition is concerned the food he ate versus the food you suggested for a sequel will warrant the same results, then I suggest you really do some research as to metabolic function and how specific sources of calories and macronutrients are processed. That "calorie is a calorie" crap has been dismissed so many times it's not even funny.

And you must not have even seen the flick, because as time went on and he felt more and more disgusted, he began only eating the salads and shit from McD's, and even switching to their more "healthy" items didn't do a whole lot to reverse the damage.

The point of the flick was to let people understand what having a diet that consists of fast food for most of your daily caloric intake will do to a person over time, but it had to be condensed and altered unless he wanted to make it over a period of years. The funny thing is if it was really so stupid and of poor whatever, as some people in here are suggesting, then the thing would not have been a success. But why was it a success? Because people really didn't understand the point he was attempting to make before he made it.

Don't hate on the man because you didn't think of it first, and if you think you can do it better, then do it.

 

[Sinister]

You guys want proof that people really don't understand that you can't eat like this every day? Check this out:

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?p=7937875#post7937875

Don't flame the guy either. This guy is eating like Morgan did WITH some weight gainers and supplements thrown in.

 

[yomon]

haha yeah i just saw that and decided not to post because the amount of effort into the post probably wouldn't achive to much in the way of results anyways.

 

[graedy]

If now somebody could tell the people how bad Keloggs and all those other breakfastflakes are. I hate it when people eat this crap and even think its healthy. I mean, everybody knows, that fast food isnt healthy but everybody thinks those flakes are healthy. They are not. Eat some oats with milk for breakfast.

 

[Grady]

HA HA HA!! Get out of here with that "calorie is a calorie" jive. If you honestly believe that where body composition is concerned the food he ate versus the food you suggested for a sequel will warrant the same results, then I suggest you really do some research as to metabolic function and how specific sources of calories and macronutrients are processed. That "calorie is a calorie" crap has been dismissed so many times it's not even funny.

+2-3000 extra calories a day, even if it comes from higher quality sources is going to mess you up.

That is the essence of what I am saying, perhaps I did not say it well. I don't believe all sources of calories are equivelent. But when you overeat to that degree, even if it comes from healthy sources, you are going to have negative effects.

I stated that I'd like to see a real test, not one skewed by overconsumption, calorie wise. He choose not to make it a good test because it would make for a poorer film, and less dramatic results.

 

[Sinister]

That is the essence of what I am saying, perhaps I did not say it well. I don't believe all sources of calories are equivelent. But when you overeat to that degree, even if it comes from healthy sources, you are going to have negative effects.

I stated that I'd like to see a real test, not one skewed by overconsumption, calorie wise. He choose not to make it a good test because it would make for a poorer film, and less dramatic results.

And what I'm saying is if you think you can do better than do it. He was working in a time-frame, you choose to call it "skewed" because that's how you want to look at it. The experiement was a very simple base premise "what would 30 days of an all fast food diet do to a person?" And again, you entirely missed the point that in the middle of it, he adjusted his eating, lessening the sources and numbers drastically.

Either way, I think it's funny that you deem to know what he was up to without ever talking to the man. Everything in the film is thoroughly explained. Problem is too many people saw it, were affected by the dramatic results, and then billed the film as being concrete evidence (or falty evidence) of points the film was not supposed to prove in the first-place. This is just what you would call a case-study. There's too many variables to say what would happen to any person other than Morgan were they to do the same thing, with slightly different approaches. And if he would have done it your way, I'm sure someone would come along and pick it apart all the same.

 

[Grady]

I do believe his motivations were for drama and profit sake as the primary goal. No, I don't know the guy, and no, I don't think it was a good test, and no, I haven't the slightest interest in running a similar experiment (although at least *one person has made a counter-experiement film).

Am I being fair to the man without talking to him? Plenty of people comment on films and documentaries on online formus such as this without speaking to the creator, so I think its kind of silly for you to suggest that as a requirement for me before I state what I believe his motivations are.

Now if I were a journalist, I'd consider writing him and asking him some questions to support or disprove my opinions, but this is a relatively informal here, right?

I do take your point about it being picked apart for some reason, no matter the parameters though. Thats bound to happen, especially if it is percieved that someone has an agenda.

* ref: http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,04100.cfm

 

[Sinister]

Am I being fair to the man without talking to him? Plenty of people comment on films and documentaries on online formus such as this without speaking to the creator, so I think its kind of silly for you to suggest that as a requirement for me before I state what I believe his motivations are.

Now if I were a journalist, I'd consider writing him and asking him some questions to support or disprove my opinions, but this is a relatively informal here, right?

You're very good at talking in a way that suits your purpose but avoiding main points. I'll give you that much.

Actually, speaking to a person should always be a requisite of distinguishing what their motivations are. Otherwise you're going mostly on heresay, and speculation, which are hardly credible. No matter what your belief-structure is on the matter. Doesn't matter if you're a journalist or not, assuming soemone's state-of-mind or intent without any sort of non-circumstancial evidence is quite simply a very irrelevant opinion, and shouldn't sway a person from being able to see where the faults in that logic are.

You can believe whatever you like, that's your choice, but in so choosing such things a person should be able to see when they're choosing a standpoint based on their own opinion and speculation, versus facts of the matter. Especially when they are unwilling to go about any process of disproving said facts.

Now of course you can use the success of the Film as a matter of fact that he indeed turned a Profit. But anyone who has ever studied Film can tell you that nine times out of ten when making any Film, especially documentary Films/Art pieces, garnering a profit is an extreme shot in the dark. In-fact most people who invest money in these things have to be willing to take the risk that there is a good chance they won't make that money back. It's hardly an Industry where you can plan to make a profit and succeed in doing so without certain parameters and guidelines to what you intend to do.

So I doubt very seriously Profit was a major motivator. Now drama? Well you can call anything "drama" including making the public more aware of any imminent danger within any subject. It's all "drama" of some sort. So yes, if a person is a Film Maker, or any kind of Artist, drama is always a primary motivator in most fields of Communication.

But like I said, the main points you made about what make this a "bad" test are your own opinions and until you prove your opinions substancial or understand that while you are free to have your opinion, it does nothing to discredit what was shown on the Film because what was shown actually DID happen regardless of what anyone thought of it. It stands that Supersize Me is a pretty decent case-study, by case-study I mean a study of a single case given the methodology used.

 

[Grady]

Actually, speaking to a person should always be a requisite of distinguishing what their motivations are. Otherwise you're going mostly on heresay, and speculation, which are hardly credible. No matter what your belief-structure is on the matter. Doesn't matter if you're a journalist or not, assuming soemone's state-of-mind or intent without any sort of non-circumstancial evidence is quite simply a very irrelevant opinion, and shouldn't sway a person from being able to see where the faults in that logic are.

Well, assumming he bothered to answer me, he could lie, couldn't he?

You can believe whatever you like, that's your choice, but in so choosing such things a person should be able to see when they're choosing a standpoint based on their own opinion and speculation, versus facts of the matter. Especially when they are unwilling to go about any process of disproving said facts.

Actually, I agree with you here, except for the implication that my opinions aren't grounded in anything but speculation.

Now of course you can use the success of the Film as a matter of fact that he indeed turned a Profit. But anyone who has ever studied Film can tell you that nine times out of ten when making any Film, especially documentary Films/Art pieces, garnering a profit is an extreme shot in the dark. In-fact most people who invest money in these things have to be willing to take the risk that there is a good chance they won't make that money back. It's hardly an Industry where you can plan to make a profit and succeed in doing so without certain parameters and guidelines to what you intend to do.

True. But Spurlock wasn't a total newbie to entertainment either. He hosted a oddball show on MTV previously.

So I doubt very seriously Profit was a major motivator. Now drama? Well you can call anything "drama" including making the public more aware of any imminent danger within any subject. It's all "drama" of some sort. So yes, if a person is a Film Maker, or any kind of Artist, drama is always a primary motivator in most fields of Communication.

OK, but how do you know what motivated him if you didn't ask him?

But like I said, the main points you made about what make this a "bad" test are your own opinions and until you prove your opinions substancial or understand that while you are free to have your opinion, it does nothing to discredit what was shown on the Film because what was shown actually DID happen regardless of what anyone thought of it. It stands that Supersize Me is a pretty decent case-study, by case-study I mean a study of a single case given the methodology used.

OK, I see what you are saying about a case-study. I didn't take it that way, but lets say that is what he meant by the film. In other words, yes, for Spurlock, as an individual, if he departs from his normative diet and eats excessively in McDonalds for 30 days, his individual body will be negatively impacted.

This, by your own logic, says no more than that. Is this what Spurlock was trying to imply with the film?

More likely, he was extrapolating his experience to society at large based on this "case-study" that only tells what he, as a lone individual, experienced. And that is invalid. You don't see that?

 

[ENTROPY]

To begin with, there are times when I love nothing more than shoving down two Big Macs, a salad and a bottled water.

That said, there are very clear facts that one must take into account when deciding to make certain foods a part of one

 

[bacon]

I think it's funny, too. A World Class athlete sponsored by the makers of the worst possible food EVER.

Krispy Kreme by armbar...

 

[Sinister]

OK, I see what you are saying about a case-study. I didn't take it that way, but lets say that is what he meant by the film. In other words, yes, for Spurlock, as an individual, if he departs from his normative diet and eats excessively in McDonalds for 30 days, his individual body will be negatively impacted.

This, by your own logic, says no more than that. Is this what Spurlock was trying to imply with the film?

More likely, he was extrapolating his experience to society at large based on this "case-study" that only tells what he, as a lone individual, experienced. And that is invalid. You don't see that?

I agree with this, and Entropy's post completely. Now we're on the same page. Supersize me is grossly invalid, which is why I was saying a lot of people take it to mean something it cannot possibly mean. However, that doesn't mean McDonald's food is good for you, or even food. They've LONG been on the outskirts of an industry whose prime objective is to adequately feed people. They're a Company whose prime objective is to get their product to as many people as they possibly can as least-costly as possible, which compromises the term "food" in many cases. At least that's my opinion. My Father was actually a McD's Franchise owner, and I've seen some of their corporate training videos. They had a whole video on McNuggets in the 80's and let me tell you, it didn't have SHIT to do with food. lol