Finally, something other than hockey worth watching on CBC.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Kemitology, I thought you said "adults know better". This is perfect proof they don't.

And what precisely does this little driveby post mean?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

And what precisely does this little driveby post mean?

It means that fast food isn't good for you, but you don't get it.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It wasn't that he ate at McDs that caused his problems. It was that he vastly over-ate.

So if you over-eat and stop exercising you become unhealthy? Well no kidding.

But that's not what his conclusions at the end of the movie were.

You can't realistically rule McDonalds out. If he went on a tofu and broccoli binge he wouldn't have had the same results. He overate because McDonalds portions are too large and have too many carbs, sugars, and calories. Which most people don't realize.

What I think he was trying to demonstrate was HOW bad McDonalds can be for you. Everyone knows that McDonalds is bad for you, but I don't think many people realize just what kind of garbage is in that food.

[Sylvanfan]

Well Supersize me is a pretty extreme experiment, and I think that his picking on McDonalds was maybe a bit unfair. He would have had similar results eating KFC, Wendy's, or Burger King or anywhere that sells fries and large soft drinks.

Still it must have had some type of impact. They don't do supersizing anymore, fastfood chains are trying to to cut out trans fat, and are offering seemingly healthier choices. At the end of the day, the odd burger from those places isn't going to kill you. But eating fries and having that soft drink that often will. Look at that Big Mac freak, he was a bit hefty, but he wasn't a fat fata. He doesn't eat fries or have the large farva that often.

[WesternCanadaKing]

Awesome!!!

This is the funniest show ever, dunno why Fox canceled it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It means that fast food isn't good for you, but you don't get it.

And where did I say that fast food is good for you?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Burninator

You can't realistically rule McDonalds out. If he went on a tofu and broccoli binge he wouldn't have had the same results. He overate because McDonalds portions are too large and have too many carbs, sugars, and calories. Which most people don't realize.

What I think he was trying to demonstrate was HOW bad McDonalds can be for you. Everyone knows that McDonalds is bad for you, but I don't think many people realize just what kind of garbage is in that food.

I understand all of that.

But if you are going to perform a controlled experiment you have to do it in the right way.

Again - he basically lived the most unhealthy lifestyle possible and dramatically shifted his diet overnight. He was setting up his body for disaster.

Here's a link to someone that also ate McDs for 30 days and guess what? She lost weight and lowered her cholestoral.
http://www.cei.org/pages/debunk/debunk_the_junk.cfm

Check out this comparison too:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...wn_size_me.htm

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

And where did I say that fast food is good for you?

You're doing a good job of defending fast food. If you have problems with the movie, that's fine but you seem to be bluring the issues.

[V]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're doing a good job of defending fast food. If you have problems with the movie, that's fine but you seem to be bluring the issues.

That's odd, the way I read it, he has issues with the way the experiment was conducted. It has nothing to do with fast food, in essence. Completely change your diet and excerise rituals, and lifestyle, and what do you think will happen?

The experiment was done poorly. It's pretty easy to see that.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

That's odd, the way I read it, he has issues with the way the experiment was conducted. It has nothing to do with fast food, in essence. Completely change your diet and excerise rituals, and lifestyle, and what do you think will happen?

The experiment was done poorly. It's pretty easy to see that.

JH did say "what that guy went through had little to do with MacDonalds". From my experince, I tend to think differently and others have said the same. I feel lousy after eating at Rotten Ronnies and my diet is pretty normal otherwise. To me, my body is telling me something but if you ate there regularly, you may not know why you feel lousy.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I understand all of that.

But if you are going to perform a controlled experiment you have to do it in the right way.

Again - he basically lived the most unhealthy lifestyle possible and dramatically shifted his diet overnight. He was setting up his body for disaster.

Here's a link to someone that also ate McDs for 30 days and guess what? She lost weight and lowered her cholestoral.
http://www.cei.org/pages/debunk/debunk_the_junk.cfm

Check out this comparison too:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...wn_size_me.htm

Hmmm, that first site seems to be as biased and unbalnced as you claim the movie to be.

I will agree that in SSM the odds were stacked against McD's. I will agree it's basically everyones responsibility to make sure they are healthy and to make healthy choices.

However, it doesn't change the fact that the food industry fights unfairly to make money. Not feed people healthy food. Not even feed people. Not even to make a good product. But to make money pure and simple. And using lobby groups and governmental legislation they make it an uphill climb for people seeking healthy alternatives, while denying them information about the stuff they are selling them. With a product as essential as FOOD there should be more protection, information, or comsumer representation.

That's the point.

Just as smoking companies were proven that they tried to make their products MORE addictive over the years, it is coming out that fast food companies have done this to a degree as well. Not better, not cheaper, MORE ADDICTIVE.

That's the point.

I have very little sympathy for anyone who overeats or eats poorly and blames it on anyone but themselves in our day and age. But to say that the companies, lobby groups and governments don't share part of the blame is just as silly.

Basically it comes down to what do we want as a society? A bunch of rich multinationals and a fat lazy populace that costs the health care and job system even more than the profits the companies that made them sick made?

Or do we want to fix this problem?

You'll notice at the end of the documentary he put the onus on the consumers anyway. It's our job to stop supporting such places. It's just a little difficult when it's hard to know what's good and what's bad. (I didn't know they're yogurt was as bad as their ice cream and never would have thought of it being so. I didn't know their salads could be as bad as their burgers.) They don't fight fair, and the government aids them because of special interest lobby groups and kickbacks.

One last point. He didn't switch to 'the most unhealthly lifestyle possible', he switched to the national average.

Back on topic: I like The Passionate Eye on CBC. I actually enjoy that chanel for many thins, esp news and documentaries. Not great for comedies or dramas, but you can see tose on other channels anyway.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Hmmm, that first site seems to be as biased and unbalnced as you claim the movie to be.

Agreed. But it demonstrates that if you set out to prove something used a flawed approach you can pretty much dictate your results.


Look at it this way. If the dude that made SSM HAD to know that what he was going to go through was going to be pretty extreme otherwise it would have made a pretty dull movie. He set the experiment up so that it had the most dramatic impact on his body. That's bad science. Actually that's not science at all.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I will agree that in SSM the odds were stacked against McD's. I will agree it's basically everyones responsibility to make sure they are healthy and to make healthy choices.

However, it doesn't change the fact that the food industry fights unfairly to make money. Not feed people healthy food. Not even feed people. Not even to make a good product. But to make money pure and simple. And using lobby groups and governmental legislation they make it an uphill climb for people seeking healthy alternatives, while denying them information about the stuff they are selling them. With a product as essential as FOOD there should be more protection, information, or comsumer representation.

That's the point.

Just as smoking companies were proven that they tried to make their products MORE addictive over the years, it is coming out that fast food companies have done this to a degree as well. Not better, not cheaper, MORE ADDICTIVE.

That's the point.

I have very little sympathy for anyone who overeats or eats poorly and blames it on anyone but themselves in our day and age. But to say that the companies, lobby groups and governments don't share part of the blame is just as silly.

Basically it comes down to what do we want as a society? A bunch of rich multinationals and a fat lazy populace that costs the health care and job system even more than the profits the companies that made them sick made?

All great stuff that would have made for an interesting documentary. But that's not the movie he made. The movie he made was a gimmicky piece of propaganda with a pretty clear agenda from the start. As a fan of docs, this type of uber-slanted trash bugs me.

Originally Posted by Daradon

One last point. He didn't switch to 'the most unhealthly lifestyle possible', he switched to the national average.

I realize that this is what he said he did. But I find it VERY hard to believe that the national average is NO exercise (not even walking to work) and overeating fast food EVERY day.
Sorry I don't buy that at all.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You're doing a good job of defending fast food. If you have problems with the movie, that's fine but you seem to be bluring the issues.

Nope. You are just misunderstanding what I'm arguing here. It's actually very little about the specific topic (fast food) and more about the methodology employed by the filmmaker.

I have similar thoughts about some of the stuff that Michael Moore puts out.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Nope. You are just misunderstanding what I'm arguing here. It's actually very little about the specific topic (fast food) and more about the methodology employed by the filmmaker.

I have similar thoughts about some of the stuff that Michael Moore puts out.

Sure M Moore and this other guy play fast and loose with their facts but if they didn't pump it up, no one would watch other than a few like me and you. You've tried to change the argument from fast food to shooting the messenger while defending MacDonalds. Classic big business tactics.

[blankall]

I'm gonna have to go with JH here. Not only did he change his lifestyle etc... he also forced himself to eat when he didnt want to. Even if someone was eating at mcdonalds 3 times a day if they didnt want to finish a meal or didnt want supersizing then they wouldnt eat it. You can get just as fat eating at home everyday if you forced yourself to eat more than you wanted....

People just have to realize that hamburgers, pop, and fries are high calorie food. But who didnt know that anyway.

JH is not defending big business. He is merely pointed out we are being fed something less than the truth, becuase the methods used were non-scientific. I totally agree. I dont appreciate anyone sensationalizing or lying to me regardless of their motives.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

People just have to realize that hamburgers, pop, and fries are high calorie food. But who didnt know that anyway.

JH is not defending big business. He is merely pointed out we are being fed something less than the truth, becuase the methods used were non-scientific. I totally agree. I dont appreciate anyone sensationalizing or lying to me regardless of their motives.

But you don't mind MacDonalds brainwashing our kids?
Now which is worse? We need some perspective here.

[Bobblehead]

I don't question his investigative facts, but he would have done better with me if he hadn't forced himself to eat to the point of vomiting. C'mon, almost anyone else would just stop eating. If he had just said, "That's all, I am full" I would have respected his results more. As it is, I wonder if he didn't just force himself into getting sick and maybe if he had avoided gorging himself he may have had different results.

I still think fastfood more than once a week is not healthy.
I hadn't thought about McDonalds conditioning children but he does bring up good points.
His cravings and emotional swings were very interesting.
How long it took to lose the weight was interesting.

But him forcing himself to eat to the point of vomiting just "coloured" the results in my mind.
Would the same things happen if he only ate McDonalds but not to excess at every sitting?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure M Moore and this other guy play fast and loose with their facts but if they didn't pump it up, no one would watch other than a few like me and you. You've tried to change the argument from fast food to shooting the messenger while defending MacDonalds. Classic big business tactics.

Why do you keep trying to tell me what my arguments are?

I've not changed my arguments at all.

My criticisms are of the methodologies employed for a so-called fact-based documentary.

Mogan whateverhisnameis claims to be a documentary filmmaker. He should therefore be held up to some journalistic standards. Otherwise he should merely refer to himself as an realty-based entertainer in the same mold as Borat and Paris Hilton/Nicole Ritchie from The Simple Life.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why do you keep trying to tell me what my arguments are?

I've not changed my arguments at all.

My criticisms are of the methodologies employed for a so-called fact-based documentary.

Mogan whateverhisnameis claims to be a documentary filmmaker. He should therefore be held up to some journalistic standards. Otherwise he should merely refer to himself as an realty-based entertainer in the same mold as Borat and Paris Hilton/Nicole Ritchie from The Simple Life.

You've changed the focus from MacDonald's and fast food to attacking the movie director. Good show.

An extreme example but it's like Joe citizen speeding to help stop a murder and the cop ignores the murder and pulls Joe over for speeding.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You've changed the focus from MacDonald's and fast food to attacking the movie director. Good show.

An extreme example but it's like Joe citizen speeding to help stop a murder and the cop ignores the murder and pulls Joe over for speeding.

Actually the thread is about programming on CBC, and someone mentioned this movie. So my criticisms about it are perfectly on point. This isn't a thread about the evils of fast food.