McDonalds the movie: "Supersize Me"

[Behemoth]

I thought the saddest scene in the movie was when the school girl was telling Jared from Subway that she couldn't afford to go on the Subway diet so there was no way she could lose weight. Especially depressing is that Jared was apparently too much of a shill to just point out that she could buy bread and turkey breast at the supermarket and make her own freakin' sandwiches. Gah!

[Daniel]

One thing I was questioning was the time between his meals and when he got his blood drawn for the various tests he was taking..  I think alot of those tests require fasting for a certain period of time.. And i dont know if you can fast and eat three meals a day at the same time.   

 

←

I need to respond to a couple of your points having just watched the movie last night. His blood glucose was not monitored on the screen. That is most definitely best monitored as a fasting test. The cholesterol might have been affected, butactually all one needs is an 8 hour fast for a reasonable level. The leiver function tests, which werer the most profound results are not a fasting test. This was indeed revelatory and a major concern. Were the results due to the fats in the diet, the sugars, the chemicals or a combination of the above? Who knows, but as a physician and a parent the results are indeed alarming.

←

So if the glucose, and the cholesterol are fasting tests, which of the important tests arent fasting.

←

Unfortunately most people nowadays either don't know what is involved, feel they have no choice or are inculcated at an early age. This is probably the most insidious part of the whole thing. The comparisons to Joe Camel are not far off the mark.

←

I also think you are selling a lot of people short here.. I think alot more people then you realize are smart enough to know mc donalds isnt good for you.

Edited November 24, 2004 by Jason Perlow (log)

[Mabelline]

I've got to agree with 'the possum lovin' Behemoth', John Whiting, and docsconz.

That's pitiful about that Subway bit. Like the feller couldn't just say, "Darlin' you can do it yourself---you don't need Subway (Like I do)."

Schools are some of our worst offenders. We have no effective food services at schools...the money isn't there, or they make deals with Pepsi to scam athletic sponsorship money....Ah jeez, this just winds me so badly.

Edited November 22, 2004 by Mabelline (log)

[Daniel]

I agree with people to,with respect that school food isnt healthy.. However, if parents are not involved in the childs diet and participating in this facet of their lives, this neglect will most likely carry into many aspects. I think this is a parenting concern, by either forcing change, or providing a lunch, its the parents duty to educate and protect their child.

Edited November 22, 2004 by Daniel (log)

[Darcie B]

I agree with people to,with respect that school food isnt healthy.. However, if  parents are not involved in the childs diet and participating in this facet of their lives, this neglect will most likely carry into many aspects.  I think this is a parenting concern,  by either forcing change, or providing a lunch, its the parents duty to educate and protect their child.

←

I agree, it is a parent's duty to provide for his children. But when parents fail to do so, I feel it is the responsibility of the rest of us to take up the slack. Many parents lack resources to provide their children with alternative lunches or just plain don't understand the importance of good nutrition. The barrage of advertisements by fast food places makes it easy to make a quick (but bad) decision about dinner. Perhaps you and I have the fortitude and ability to come home after a hard day's work and cook a healthy meal, but not everyone else does.

If we don't show children proper nutrition in the schools we are failing in our civic duty and telling them that nutrition isn't important.

Polticians go on about how important our children are and we spend billions on creating new standardized tests but we feed kids chicken nuggets in the school cafeteria.

My husband taught vocational school for five years and ate lunch at the school cafeteria (much to my dismay). He gained 20+ pounds and his cholesterol shot up. In the two months since he quit his job he's lost 10 pounds. The crap that makes up most school lunches is, well, crap.

I'm sure it would cost more to feed kids good food, but how much more? How much would we save in health care costs down the road? We are such a short sighted people.

[Daniel Rogov]

I finally got to see the film. Truth is I've been in cities in the USA and Europe where it was showing but waited until it came to Tel Aviv.

My problem with the film has nothing to do with McDonalds. My problem with the film is that it is blatantly anti-intellectual, so blatant in fact that I might even call it unintelligent.

I admit that although I consider the fare of McDonald's vastly far from excellent in any way, I have no objection whatever either to their existence or to those who care to dine there. I cannot admire those who choose to dine at McDonald's three times daily but then again, I would not admire the fool who dined on lobster Thermidor, tournedos Rossini and crepes Suzette three times daily either. In either case, blaming McDonald's is something oddly akin to blaming the chef who prepares my lobster Thermidor.

As to the film - I do not mind that the film is anti-McDonald's. That is the director/film-maker's privilege. What I mind is the simplistic and totally anti-intellectual approach to the subject. The film has set out to document something - in this case that dining at McDonald's three times a day and always accepting the larger portions is foolish. That is not something that needs documentation - it is obvious in the same way that saying that drinking three bottles of wine daily is not good for one's health or that driving blindfolded on a superhighway might offer a certain modicum of danger. Only idiots would do such things and only anti-intellectual idiots would do it in the name of making a film.

Not defending McDonald's! Defending a bit of intelligence.

[robyn]

The difference is that most people eating gourmet food such as many eGulleteers have at least some access to nutritional information and alternatives. Many of the people targeted by the FF industry don't or are unaware of better alternatives. A perfect example from the movie are the school lunch programs that are essentially FF joints. That IMO is the most disgraceful part of the whole thing.

←

Perhaps the people here have access to such information - but if you read through lots of messages in lots of threads - there's a disturbing message to be found in quite a few. A lot of people who write messages here are overweight.

Now you're a doctor (although I don't know what kind - hopefully not a PhD in music in light of your medical statements ). And we both know that it's not in the cards for most people to look like Twiggy. On the other hand - even for people who have a family tendency to carry a few too many pounds (like me and my husband) - there's a range - between looking ok - and being a blimp. And the difference between being at the low end of that range - or the high end - or off the charts - is making personal decisions about what you put in your mouth on a day to day basis. It's the difference between high calorie high fat food being an occasional treat - or what you eat every day. And you know - even if you're thin - eating something like an extreme Atkins diet is bad for you (I have a friend who basically ate lean meat most of the time - he looked great - but wound up with hideous diverticular disease/colostomy at age 40 from lack of fiber in his diet).

So I think it's important for adults to exercise self-restraint - and to eat sensibly. And it's doubly important for adults to impose that sense of restraint on their children. And if their children go to schools where the food is garbage - it's important for them as parents to protest and take whatever actions are appropriate so their children don't eat garbage most of the time. I don't see any reason why schools should accept money from outfits like Coca Cola so we can pay lower property taxes. Robyn

[docsconz]

The difference is that most people eating gourmet food such as many eGulleteers have at least some access to nutritional information and alternatives. Many of the people targeted by the FF industry don't or are unaware of better alternatives. A perfect example from the movie are the school lunch programs that are essentially FF joints. That IMO is the most disgraceful part of the whole thing.

←

Perhaps the people here have access to such information - but if you read through lots of messages in lots of threads - there's a disturbing message to be found in quite a few. A lot of people who write messages here are overweight.

No doubt this statement is true. Many people here who are overweight have some understanding of the issues involved, some have a great understanding while some may not. The children targeted by McDonald's and school lunches do not nor do many of their parents. Personal choice is certainly an important factor and to the extent that individuals have knowledge to make those choices, others cannot be faulted when those choices are made. If I were to go out and emulate the behavior seen in Supersize me after having seen the movie I don't think that I could blame McDonald's, but if I'm a kid and that is all that I can eat because that is all that is available to me, that's a problem. There is no choice there. I certainly wouldn't legislate against people being able to choose fast food, but they should be aware of the potential consequences, nutritionally and socially. That is informed consent - a subject very near and dear to my profession.

Now you're a doctor (although I don't know what kind - hopefully not a PhD in music in light of your medical statements ).  And we both know that it's not in the cards for most people to look like Twiggy.  On the other hand - even for people who have a family tendency to carry a few too many pounds (like me and my husband) - there's a range - between looking ok - and being a blimp.  And the difference between being at the low end of that range - or the high end - or off the charts - is making personal decisions about what you put in your mouth on a day to day basis.  It's the difference between high calorie high fat food being an occasional treat - or what you eat every day.  And you know - even if you're thin - eating something like an extreme Atkins diet is bad for you (I have a friend who basically ate lean meat most of the time - he looked great - but wound up with hideous diverticular disease/colostomy at age 40 from lack of fiber in his diet).

Any extreme diet appears to be problematic. The point about Atkins is that the high fat diet does not necessarily lead to obesity. High fat by iteself or in any unbalanced way is bound to be a problem in some way as isa pure carbohydrate diet. The issue here isn't really one of aesthetics. It is one of personal and societal health.

So I think it's important for adults to exercise self-restraint - and to eat sensibly.  And it's doubly important for adults to impose that sense of restraint on their children.  And if their children go to schools where the food is garbage - it's important for them as parents to protest and take whatever actions are appropriate so their children don't eat garbage most of the time.

I can't dispute this, although the parents themselves need to be aware that the food is garbage first. This movie is a step in that direction.

I don't see any reason why schools should accept money from outfits like Coca Cola so we can pay lower property taxes.  Robyn

←

If you dance with the devil... Why not take money from cigarette companies and have cigarette vending machines or the pushers from down the street? On the surface these appear to be extreme examples, but personally I'm not so sure that the soft drink industry isn't the real culprit here.

[kellycolorado]

I don't think this was mentioned explicitly, but the unhealthfulness of the food might not just be from the fat and calories, but the high fructose corn syrup and partially hydrogenated veg. oils and all the other things not normally found in your traditional meat and potatoes heavy fare.

Also, he didn't super size every meal, only when he was suggestive upsold to. It actually happened less than I thought (about 12 times I seem to remember).

[Daniel]

I finally got to see the film. Truth is I've been in cities in the USA and Europe where it was showing but waited until it came to Tel Aviv. 

My problem with the film has nothing to do with McDonalds.  My problem with the film is that it is blatantly anti-intellectual, so blatant in fact that I might even call it unintelligent.

I admit that although I consider the fare of McDonald's vastly far from excellent in any way, I have no objection whatever either to their existence or to those who care to dine there. I cannot admire those who choose to dine at McDonald's three times daily but then again, I would not admire the fool who dined on lobster Thermidor, tournedos Rossini and crepes Suzette three times daily either. In either case, blaming McDonald's is something oddly akin to blaming the chef who prepares my lobster Thermidor.

As to the film - I do not mind that the film is anti-McDonald's. That is the director/film-maker's privilege. What I mind is the simplistic and totally anti-intellectual approach to the subject. The film has set out to document something - in this case that dining at McDonald's three times a day and always accepting the larger portions is foolish. That is not something that needs documentation - it is obvious in the same way that saying that drinking three bottles of wine daily is not good for one's health or that driving blindfolded on a superhighway might offer a certain modicum of danger. Only idiots would do such things and only anti-intellectual idiots would do it in the name of making a film.

Not defending McDonald's!  Defending a bit of intelligence.

←

good points!!! and good post.. But infact i have to disagree with you, i would say that this movie plays on the "intellectuals" eogtism. I wouldnt call this movie unitellectual, i would call it intellectual porn.. This bolsters these people and further proves their superiority over the common man.. This tells them that them and only them are the ones responsible for the well being of such sloths..These intellects are responsible for taking care of the common man who has no choice but to succumb to the advertisements and will of the powerful corporate monsters.

And your right, no person yells out for the labeling of the harms of fois gras, because its obvious to them, if someone could afford it, then they obviously are intelligent to know its harms.

Edited November 23, 2004 by Daniel (log)

[docsconz]

The point is not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't eat or hindering anyone from eating what they want even if it is a supersized McDonald's meal. The point is that FF, has gotten so pervasive in our culture that many people including schoolchildren do not have any real choices other than FF. There are a lot of costs associated with this, seen and unseen.

[Daniel Rogov]

Three points, perhaps a bit off -topic but still perhaps relevant:

1. Fast food is not and should not be taken as synonymous with junk food. I object to junk food in every possible form, but let us consider that included in various parts of the world as "fast food items" might well be oysters, New Orleans spiced shrimp, felafel, shwarma (or, if one prefers donner kebab), beignets, knockwurst and other sausage sandwiches, sushi, dim sum, and a host of other items all of which, when prepared well from fine ingredients can make for superb dining experiences. Perhaps our objections should thus be not to "fast" bug to "junk" foods.

2. Might we also consider that one meal daily of "junk food" might do our children relatively little harm? As Gael Greene of New York Magazine wrote many years ago "...even a McDonald's hamburger comes with at least some lettuce and tomato on it and contains a decent amount of proteins and other nutrients" . Me wonders (I do like using that phrase from time to time) whether that BigMac will do them any more harm than the peanut butter and jelly, salami or tinned tuna with mayonnaise sandwiches on "white bread" that they bring with them from home. I suspect that there are a good many of us here (myself included) for whom there are fond memories of school lunches of humongous hero sandwiches of ham, cheese, lettuce, tomato, tons of mustard or of the Issac Gellis, Sabrett or Hebrew national hot dogs gulped down on rolls and laded with rather enormous quantities of sauerkraut, fried spiced onions, ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise and just about anything else we could pack onto the top of those rolls.

May I ask that we also keep in mind another of Gael Green's aphorisms: "In the heart of every gourmet lies the soul of a fast-food junkie" . Heck, I know that Sabrett's hot dogs are not "good for me" but whenever I'm in New York City one of my great pleasures is to start off at the Grand Central Oyster Bar with a dozen oysters (lemon only thank you) and then to find one of those hot-dog carts and have two dogs loaded (as I did as a child) with just about everything that I can get on top of the hot dog without making an absolute fool of myself or a mess of my clothing.

Finally, with a nod toward the future, there will be those of us who start off on McDonalds and eventually graduate to Tournedos Rossini and there will be those who do not. But now we are getting away from food and into issues that have their basis in psychology, sociology, anthropology, aesthetics, economics, and moral philosophy....and this is surely not the place for that.

[iamthestretch]

The point is not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't eat or hindering anyone from eating what they want even if it is a supersized McDonald's meal. The point is that FF, has gotten so pervasive in our culture that many people including schoolchildren do not have any real choices other than FF. There are a lot of costs associated with this, seen and unseen.

←

I happen to agree with John on this. There is also the argument that the amount of resources devoted to persuading consumers, particularly young consumers, to eat fast food so grossly dwarfs the amount spent on educating them about healthier choices as to render any debate about 'freedom of choice' essentially meaningless. A quick Google search turns up these 2004 media spend numbers for the big fast food firms: McDonalds -- $629 million. BK -- $296 million. Wendy's -- $231 million. Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC -- $550 million. That's an awful lot of persuasion.

It's interesting to examine the disconnects in the culture over this particular issue. I happened to be there on March 11 this year when the House of Representatives passed the so-called "cheeseburger bill" -- explicitly designed to shield the fast food industry from any future obesity related lawsuits. There were a lot of impassioned speeches about common sense and parents' ultimate responsibility for controling their kids' dietary habits. A few hours later, the same august body passed another law to massively increase (by more than 20 times) the fines TV stations face if they broadcast material judged to be obscene, amid cries of: "Won't somebody think of the children?" Because, obviously, parents can't be expected to control their kids' viewing habits, for heaven's sake!

Edited November 23, 2004 by iamthestretch (log)

[corinne]

The segments that had the most impact on me were:

1) The school for problem kids that saw many of the behavioral issues disappear when a healthy diet was set in place. As a nutritionist myself, I am right now looking at the food records of a 10 year old boy who refuses all foods but pancakes, pizza, hamburgers, cereal and other white starches. His parents report that he is moody and extremelely fatigued. These SAD (standard American diet) diets are almost completely lacking in plant-based antioxidants and essential fatty acids necessary for optimal brain function and mood. If only he were the exception rather than the rule! He is SKINNY right now, the obesity and diabetes may well follow in 20 years

2) The man waiting for a gastric bypass stating that he routinely drank 3 2-liter bottles of soda each day (his wife drank one). i turned the film off at that point, completely depressed.

Yes, I agree that Spurlock's weight gain and downturn in labs could well happen to anyone who stuffed themselves to the point of vomiting for a month straight.

The indictment of McDonald's in all this is just one piece of the puzzle of why the developed world is getting fat and diabetic.

[docsconz]

Three points, perhaps a bit off -topic but still perhaps relevant:

1. Fast food is not and should not be taken as synonymous with junk food.  I object to junk food in every possible form, but let us consider that included in various parts of the world as "fast food items" might well be oysters, New Orleans spiced shrimp, felafel, shwarma (or, if one prefers donner kebab), beignets, knockwurst and other sausage sandwiches, sushi, dim sum, and a host of other items all of which, when prepared well from fine ingredients can make for superb dining experiences. Perhaps our objections should thus be not to "fast" bug to "junk" foods.

I absolutely agree with your statement. Just because something is made quickly it is not necessarily junk.

2.  Might we also consider that one meal daily of "junk food" might do our children relatively little harm?  As Gael Greene of New York Magazine wrote many years ago "...even a McDonald's hamburger comes with at least some lettuce and tomato on it and contains a decent amount of proteins and other nutrients" .  Me wonders (I do like using that phrase from time to time) whether that BigMac will do them any more harm than the peanut butter and jelly, salami or  tinned tuna with mayonnaise sandwiches on "white bread" that they bring with them from home.

This might be true without the soda.

May I ask that we also keep in mind another of Gael Green's aphorisms:  "In the heart of every gourmet lies the soul of a fast-food junkie" .  Heck, I know that Sabrett's hot dogs are not "good for me" but whenever I'm in New York City one of my great pleasures is to start off at the Grand Central Oyster Bar with a dozen oysters (lemon only thank you) and then to find one of those hot-dog carts and have two dogs loaded (as I did as a child) with just about everything that I can get on top of the hot dog without making an absolute fool of myself or a mess of my clothing.

←

Once again, the point is not whether or not someone should like MCD's or even choose to eat it. While I believe the costs of doing so are much higher than their superficial appearance I do not begrudge someone the right to do so if they so choose. I draw the line, however, on essentially foisting the stuff on people who either have no choice or don't know better.

[winesonoma]

I finally got to see the film. Truth is I've been in cities in the USA and Europe where it was showing but waited until it came to Tel Aviv. 

My problem with the film has nothing to do with McDonalds.  My problem with the film is that it is blatantly anti-intellectual, so blatant in fact that I might even call it unintelligent.

I admit that although I consider the fare of McDonald's vastly far from excellent in any way, I have no objection whatever either to their existence or to those who care to dine there. I cannot admire those who choose to dine at McDonald's three times daily but then again, I would not admire the fool who dined on lobster Thermidor, tournedos Rossini and crepes Suzette three times daily either. In either case, blaming McDonald's is something oddly akin to blaming the chef who prepares my lobster Thermidor.

As to the film - I do not mind that the film is anti-McDonald's. That is the director/film-maker's privilege. What I mind is the simplistic and totally anti-intellectual approach to the subject. The film has set out to document something - in this case that dining at McDonald's three times a day and always accepting the larger portions is foolish. That is not something that needs documentation - it is obvious in the same way that saying that drinking three bottles of wine daily is not good for one's health or that driving blindfolded on a superhighway might offer a certain modicum of danger. Only idiots would do such things and only anti-intellectual idiots would do it in the name of making a film.

Not defending McDonald's!  Defending a bit of intelligence.

←

good points!!! and good post.. But infact i have to disagree with you, i would say that this movie plays on the "intellectuals" eogtism. I wouldnt call this movie unitellectual, i would call it intellectual porn.. This bolsters these people and further proves their superiority over the common man.. This tells them that them and only them are the ones responsible for the well being of such sloths..These intellects are responsible for taking care of the common man who has no choice but to succumb to the advertisements and will of the powerful corporate monsters.

And your right, no person yells out for the labeling of the harms of fois gras, because its obvious to them, if someone could afford it, then they obviously are intelligent to know its harms.

←

No in California they called for Foie Gras to be banned and succeeded. Don't go after the big guys.

[ronnie_suburban]

From AP, via Yahoo:

The McDonald's-bashing documentary "Super Size Me" on Tuesday won the Writers Guild of America award for documentary screenplay.

The prize, the guild's first in that category, recognized writer Morgan Spurlock, who also starred in the film and became ill after a month-long experiment eating McDonald's fast food three times a day.

'Super Size Me' Wins Writers Guild Award

=R=