Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"supersize Me!"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen this film? Any thoughts?

For those who have not, it is about a man who eats nothing but McDonalds for every meal, for a month. He is under the supervision of 3 different doctors and a dietician who are all blown away when he basically goes into liver failure and gains 20+ lbs. in under 30 days.

The film is a 'documentary'. It is at least entertaining (yet horrifying) to watch, but I'm afraid the filmmaker/McDonalds-eater (Morgan Spurlock) draws some very Michael-Moore-type conclusions regarding the epidemic of obesity. Specifically, he proffers the usual line about how the public is being manipulated by advertising and lobbying from the ignoble corporations, and features public health 'officials' that want more government regulations as the solution to this problem. Though he admits to the idea that people do have free will, he is sympathethic with the (recently dismissed) law suit brought by two obese teenagers against McDonalds. This in fact is the motivation behind the film: the suit was dismissed due to a lack of evidence that McDonalds caused the girls' obesity, so Mr. Spurlock wanted to see what it would do to himself.

I was very disappointed to see in the film that McDonalds has a 'Public Relations and Social Responsibility' department (McDonalds.com). Having a public relations department is great, but to include in the name 'Social Responsibility' is at best an implicit admission of guilt. It seems to me that any acknowledgement of guilt on their part - explicit or implicit - is suicide for them, and tries to deny the basic market mechanics behind their success: people like McDonalds!

Some days I'm ashamed I completed an advanced degree in Public Health. ;)

d_s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, he proffers the usual line about how the public is being manipulated by advertising and lobbying from the ignoble corporations, and features public health 'officials' that want more government regulations as the solution to this problem.

Why is his movie any different than an action by a corporation? Couldn't you say that the public is being manipulated by this movie for more government regulations?

I try to only watch movies that show what man can be as opposed to what man should not be. This movie was simple one to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats bogus is that some of the public acts surprised that he gained weight while eating 5000 calories per day, and that it taught them not to go to McDonalds. Does anyone think McDonalds could sue for defamation?

As for "social responsibility", most programs like the Ronald McDonald house, or selling all these salads are to ward off negative media attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea im going to drink 25 gallons of orange juice each day. I will get an ungodly amount of canker sores, and probably die from some vitamin overdoses to prove how horrible orange juice is and to make the government ration orange juice out so people wont overdose like i did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those doctors and the dietician must be pretty bad if they weren't able to predict that that would happen.

Hi Daniel,

The issue was not that they didn't predict he would gain weight - it was more the magnitude of the weight gain and the fact that he actually was approaching liver failure. All four of them predicted increases in weight and triglycerides, but no one would have suspected that he would gain as much as he did as fast as he did. His blood chemistry was a total wreck - he's lucky he didn't do any permanent damage.

d_s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that off camera he actually ate more food, to purposely skew the results to ensure the result he wanted. I have no idea if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. I don't really care enough to do any research to try to verify that rumor, but feel free to do so if you do.

I actually knew a couple of people a few years ago who basically ate nothing but fast food all the time, and not small portions either, and they did not have those kinds of medical problems. They weren't in great shape, and no doubt their heart will be in bad shape in 30 years if they haven't made some lifestyle changes, but the supposed results of this documentary seem somewhat overblown to me. Either he was not simply eating McDonald's for 30 days but gorging himself on it to an extent that no mentally healthy human being would, or his doctors were not simply objective observers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching an interview featuring Spurlock on IFC a week ago. The interviewer asked shyly, "didn't you over eat?". He "countered" that arguement by saying something about how you become hungry again after a short period of time after eating fast food. I don't know if that's true or not. Someone enlighten me.

As for her second question, she asks, or actually tells him, "there were salads...". His argument is that salads had as much fat in the big macs and other sandwiches.

Even if that was true, a salad is 100% more nutritous than a freakin Big Mac. So what if it is comparable when it comes to fat. Many Americans need to realize that theres more to food then fat and calories. Spurlock either knows this ignorance and decided to exploit it himself or he actually doesn't realizes that there are other factors that determine if a food product is healthy or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between "basically" eating fast food and literally eating fast food for three meals each day could have been the difference. And some bodies can deal with an unhealthy diet better than others.

I said "basically" not because they ate it for only one or two meals a day, but because they ate it three (or four or five) meals a day "only" six and a half days out of a typical week. ;)

But again, the issue has a lot to do with just plain overeating, not simply just because it was McDonald's. If you ate three times the amount of calories you need a day every day for a month (and purposely get as little exercise as possible, and whatever else this guy probably did to "maximize" his results), I don't care what you're eating--you're going to gain a bunch of weight!

Even if his results aren't skewed--and I strongly suspect they are--it in no way changes the point that the moral responsibility lies with the idiot who treats his body that way, not with whatever fast food place sold him food. So either way, this movie has absolutely no legitimacy as an "argument" for obesity-based lawsuits. It's just particularly disgusting if the facts, and the interpretation of them that is presented to the audience, are twisted to rationalize that agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think McDonalds could sue for defamation?

I'm afraid defamation is out of the question, because the simple truth that overeating = weight gain is actually a truth, and doesn't meet the false statement qualification for libel laws. At least in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This in fact is the motivation behind the film: the suit was dismissed due to a lack of evidence that McDonalds caused the girls' obesity, so Mr. Spurlock wanted to see what it would do to himself.

Wasn't the actual motivation that during the trial a representitive of McDonalds claimed that a person could live a healthy lifestyle eating fastfood every day?

Anyway, I've not watched the film and I've no real desire to either. I'm not quite sure what the underlying point of it is meant to be; I dont really get any message from what I've heard about it other than "eating lots of unhealthy food makes you unhealthy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is highly likely that the fast-food industry will end up just like the tobacco industry. They will end up creating a huge fund that will go to governments and "non-profits".

Sadly, one of those straggling little areas of life where Objectivism isn't winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if his results aren't skewed--and I strongly suspect they are--it in no way changes the point that the moral responsibility lies with the idiot he treats his body that way, not with whatever fast food place sold him food.  So either way, this movie has absolutely no legitimacy as an "argument" for obesity-based lawsuits.  It's just particularly disgusting if the facts, and the interpretation of them that is presented to the audience, are twisted to rationalize that agenda.

Sure, sure. And I think fast food is wonderful for its convenience, price, and taste. It can be abused, just like anything else--but for responsible eaters, it's a nice option to have.

There is a review of this film over at Box Office Mojo that suggests the film keeps editorializing to a minimum: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/review/movies...supersizeme.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue was not that they didn't predict he would gain weight - it was more the magnitude of the weight gain and the fact that he actually was approaching liver failure.

If I jump off of a 40 story building, would you be suprised that I can go up to 120 mph? If the debate goes to the rate at which I approach the ground, the fundamental problem has been overlooked. Why are you jumping off of a building? You are concentrating on the effects instead of the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if his results aren't skewed--and I strongly suspect they are--it in no way changes the point that the moral responsibility lies with the idiot he treats his body that way, not with whatever fast food place sold him food.  So either way, this movie has absolutely no legitimacy as an "argument" for obesity-based lawsuits.  It's just particularly disgusting if the facts, and the interpretation of them that is presented to the audience, are twisted to rationalize that agenda.

I couldn't agree more. That is why I was a bit disturbed that McDonalds seems to be reacting to things like the lawsuit and this film. Another example: at the end of the film it was mentioned that McDonalds ended the "supersize" option after the film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. The film does not say McDonalds ended the supersize option *because* of the film, but that point seems to have been lost on the audience, as evidenced by the low murmur of "oooh" and disapproving "tisk" noises from everyone around me. It seems to me it is a real-life example of Hank Rearden pleading "not guilty" instead of refusing to validate the charges.

d_s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Head of McDonald's Australia announced yesterday that they will be undertaking an advertising campaign to counter-act the movie, because they found out through customer research that a lot of people viewed their silence as an admission of guilt.

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065034025.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
yea im going to drink 25 gallons of orange juice each day. I will get an ungodly amount of canker sores, and probably die from some vitamin overdoses to prove how horrible orange juice is and to make the government ration orange juice out so people wont overdose like i did.

I would be surprised if there werent numerous libel lawsuits filed against the producer of this movie. It is a bogus attempt to defame corporate representatives and corporations themselves. At one point he belittles corporations for spending so much on advertisements ($200 mil for Hershey I believe) and then says some Veggie group only spent $2 mil on advertising. Maybe that's because people eat veggies because they know they're healthy. WAIT a minute... they know they're healthy? Then why didn't the two fat girls know?

I'm going to start a broccoli test at the beginning of next month. For my breakfast I will have broccoli on the griddle, for lunch broccoli boiled, and for dinner broccoli on the grill. Every day I'm going to eat broccoli. After my doctors prove I have absolutely no protein in my diet and my health is shot beyone comparison, I'm going to do a movie and show a picture of broccoli on a tombstone at the very end and ask "Who do you want to see go first, you or broccoli"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this film?  Any thoughts?

...

I'm a little late to this dicussion, but what the heck...

I thought this was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I went to bed after about half of it. The people complaining about McDonalds all struck me as sort-of whiny brats who are upset that they can't eat whatever they want and still be healthy. The guy that ate all the McDonalds didn't even really seem all that interested in the results. He seemed like he was just in it for the McDonalds. My reaction was a big "whatever." I don't like McDonalds food, so I really don't care if people want to make videos saying how bad it is. That's their right. It's when they sue McDonalds that gets me annoyed. On a side note, if anyone wants to see something hilarious regarding the McDonalds issue, google "foamy's rant" and find foamy's rant number two. The beginning bit about McDonalds is funny, but then it gets kind of annoying because Foamy is really morbid. I'd reccommend only watching the McDonald's part. *If this is violating any rules, I apologize in advance, and delete at mod's discretion* I thought it would be alright if I didn't post a link.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

csatlanta1 writes:

I'm going to start a broccoli test at the beginning of next month. For my breakfast I will have broccoli on the griddle, for lunch broccoli boiled, and for dinner broccoli on the grill. Every day I'm going to eat broccoli. After my doctors prove I have absolutely no protein in my diet and my health is shot beyone comparison, I'm going to do a movie and show a picture of broccoli on a tombstone at the very end and ask "Who do you want to see go first, you or broccoli"?

I get your point, but a minor note: broccoli has more protein, calorie-for-calorie, than 2 all-beef patties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie was written to reinforce existing bias against fast food/McDonald's. On camera, the star force-fed himself to the point where he vomited early on. Mid-film, he announced that whenever he was offered a super sized portion, he'd accept and make himself eat it despite his small stature.

This isn't the outcome of a McDonald's diet. At best, it's a study of pathological overeating.

Edited by McGroarty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to start a broccoli test at the beginning of next month.  For my breakfast I will have broccoli on the griddle, for lunch broccoli boiled, and for dinner broccoli on the grill.  Every day I'm going to eat broccoli.  After my doctors prove I have absolutely no protein in my diet and my health is shot beyone comparison,  I'm going to do a movie and show a picture of broccoli on a tombstone at the very end and ask "Who do you want to see go first, you or broccoli"?

Why would you think you would have no protein in your diet?

According to the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, broccoli contains about 3 grams per cup (one serving). If you ate three servings per meal, 4 meals per day, you would consume 36 grams of proteins (amino acids), which according to my main doctor is sufficient (minimally) in amount (if not variety) for a normal, healthy adult.

P. S. Why did I suggest 4 meals per day? Because, as I have discovered in going to a low-protein, plant-foods-only diet for medical reasons, appetite increases enormously when the food eaten is very lean. To stop 40 years of inflammation problems -- dermatitis, iritis, tendonitis, bursitis, colitis, and arthritis -- I eat only fruit, vegetables, and roots. Excess proteins (and other acidity-producing foods) were causing my inflammation problems, and this low protein diet has solved the problem almost completely. However, at first, my hunger exploded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...