How full of shit was this?

so i was just reminded of this, a film one of my old teachers a long while back showed this to my class. from what i can remember, the whole thing just felt super forced and shoddy, and given it's topic, i'd imagine a few people here are gonna be familiar with it

to me, the whole thing just seems sketchy from what i can remember, like one of those 'reality' shows, except if they were made into a full-on indie film. so, who better to ask than Veeky Forums about their thoughts on it? i was gonna post about it on /cock/ but i can't post because of 'site maintenance'

here's a link to the 'documentary' if you haven't seen it
youtube.com/watch?v=jAnCOHCVjyU
(like the desc. says watch at 1.25x speed for original speed)

also how's 'fat head'? apparently it's a film revolving around debunking the whole thing from what i've heard but i haven't seen omre than 10 minutes of it

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
youtube.com/watch?v=fMwCfTBjLaw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>if you consume more calories than your body burns you gain weight
#wow #whoa

I don't really have any details about this one in particular, but these "documentaries" are infamous for being incredibly biased.

There's a similar documentary where a bodybuilder does nothing but eat McD's for a month.
Calories in, calories out. It might not be the most healthy thing in the world, but you won't turn into a lardbag if you're eating sub-2000 calories a day, even if it's burgers and fries.

He lies about how much he eats, couldn't possibly get near 5k a day with the meals he chooses, even with buying desserts and stuff. He makes no attempt to control what he eats and gets the highest calorie choices he can all the time. The conclusion that fast food is why people are fat is moronic. Fast food has far fewer calories than traditional restaurants and it's very easy to diet and lose weight eating fast food because of how standardized it is. Fat head basically proves this point even through it doesn't need to be shown.

Gaining weight is impossible unless you eat more calories than you burn. Losing weight is impossible unless you burn more calories than you eat. This is as simple as weight is although with food being the most common drug people are completely delusional and refuse to understand such a simple concept.

It's anti meat propaganda basically and addicts eat it up so they have someone to blame for their bad habits.

It's not that it says anything that is factually wrong, it's just that it does obvious shit and presents it as a shocking revelation.

Yes, eating nothing but the same oversized portions of junk food all day every day will fuck you up, especially if you don't do anything with those excess calories. But how is that in any way surprising? You could get the best steak in the world and have the finest chef alive prepare it, it's still going to fuck you up hardcore if you eat nothing but that five times a day.

Everyone knows fast food isn't exactly a healthy choice, but it's not actually going to make you unhealthy unless you eat too much of it, too often.

Yes it was mainly bullshit in the sense that the results were obvious and nothing about it was "experimental" or theoretical.

Its just as bad as any other fast food place really.

Although you could perhaps argue about the ethicacy of openly promoting the option of "supersizing" as incentive for fat fucks to get even fatter and unhealthier.

So ultimately i'd say the ends justified the means

I thought it was funny

I agree with the whole thread basically. The thing is, the movie could've been good if it had focused more on McDonald's unethical practices as a company. I know it had some segments like that (I don't remember the details anymore), but the whole point of the movie instead was just "hey look at me eating a ton of garbage whoa this isn't good whooooaaaaa". Fuckin' stupid.

The song was catchy.

If I recall right, in 'Fat Head' he also ate 3 meals at McD a day and nothing else. He ended up losing weight, probably because he didnt snack between meals. Hes tests were also fine.

I disagree with this thread so far. The movie concludes that they got a guy at the head of mcdonalds or something agreeing that they were apart of the fat problem.
They understand there's a ton of external factors, but they were trying to argue with how addicting fast food is, and if it was in part to blame with the one trial.
Ultimately it's open ended enough, and it's good to see the history as well as the main guy transform, just for a mental reminder and documented transformation.

>Although you could perhaps argue about the ethicacy of openly promoting the option of "supersizing" as incentive for fat fucks to get even fatter and unhealthier.
How about supersizing as the most economic option? All the fast food joints stopped offering that option after Supersize Me came out. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually all a crazy conspiracy by fast food companies to cut down on costs.

Pretty full of shit.

It complained that Fast Food companies want to sell you cheap, tasty shit in large quantities, and then blames those companies when people do that.

If all you ate for six months were a diet consisting of cheetos and mountain dew you'd look and feel like shit too. That doesn't mean you need to get rid of cheetos or mountain dew or the large industrial walmart cases of them.

It was the end result of the most pessimistic assumptions. Three meals a day, big meals with high calorie counts, super-size when asked when he knows they had to ask, etc.

These are bold assumptions that are completely irrelevant to the realistic circumstances of the overwhelming majority of the population.

You don't understand how fast food meal sizing works, they want you to buy the bigger size because they make more money on it. You get the same size burger/entree with a larger drink (which is their highest margin item they sell) and larger size (usually fries, which are also dirt cheap for them to produce). They add an extra dollar to the price and give you an amount of extra food that costs them probably 10 cents.

The super size option went away because of the bad publicity it was causing when idiots were stupid enough to consider this film informative, not because it wasn't cost effective.

I remember when tumblr faggots like OP didn't bring their shit to Veeky Forums.
I miss those days.

wwhy shrek is piss

>eat like shit
>don't moderate your diet
>complain it is someone elses fault you chose to be shit

WHOA

this is what I thought too

Considering Burger King mostly likly was one of the sponsors of the film, yeah its 100% propaganda.
Who the fuck eats enough that he has to vomit nearly every day? Of course thats bad for you and of course fast food is unhealthy as hell.
The movie is for politicans and mothers who want their opinion approved.

>Fast food has far fewer calories than traditional restaurants
What?
>If, for example, you're having a Big Mac with a medium order of fries and a medium cola, your total calorie intake is 1,080 calories
And you're telling me this is less than a meal in a real restaurant?
God damn fucking Americans, you've lost touch with reality.

>This is as simple as weight is although with food being the most common drug people are completely delusional and refuse to understand such a simple concept.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
>A drug is any substance (other than food that provides nutritional support) that, when inhaled, injected, smoked, consumed, absorbed via a patch on the skin, or dissolved under the tongue, causes a physiological change in the body.

>It's anti meat propaganda basically
There's meat in those things?
And when does he say "meat is bad"? Answer: fucking never.

>addicts eat it up

The problem with fast food isn't the calories, it's the saturated fats and simple starches leading to heart disease and diabetes.

Not that user, but you'd be surprised just how calorie dense typical Amerifat franchise foods are.

If I go to Ruth's Chris (~$70 a plate) and get a New York Strip + side and not even include alcohol, I'm looking at 2,000 calories excluding any appetizer or desert.

If I go to Panera Bread (~$10 a plate) and get a You Pick Two combo and a lemonade, with the default french baguette slice side, I'm looking at ~1,500 calories.

Restaurants across social strati have hella calorie dense options.

So yes, $1,080 is less than a meal at a real restaurant that costs 15x more and that's not including drinking anything.

You could get a less dense option at a real restaurant, but you also can at McDonald's.

Completely full of shit. He AVERAGED like 4500kcal a day. How the fuck did he do that when no supersized meal is a third of 4500kcal, and he explicitly said he'd eat only 3 meals?

*gun noises*

No matter how much of a sketchily edited, confirmation biased, unscientific scam Supersize Me was, I'll never complain about it so long as people still use meme diets like Keto or Raw Foods that pussyfoot around calorie deficits.

If it scared a bunch of nutrtionally illiterate people into not eating at Mickey D's, great
If it made a lot of people actually look up on their own the relationship between fast food and obesity and why they probably shouldn't be consuming transfat saltburgers, all the better

i cum on cat she hiss at penis

Supersize me A SHIT


John Cisna did just fine.

You can hit 1500 pretty easy if you throw in a large soda.

It's pretty full of shit and ruined mcDonalds for hungry poor people

#italiano

I have seen this documentary many times and every time I watch it, I just wanna eat a bunch of mcdonalds and fast foods. It's obviously biased. Spurlock gets peggingly forced by his vegan chef wife to try to destroy the disrupt the establishment. And they only briefly touched on the important issues of hormones getting pumped into the animals we eat.

>commenting on american restaurants without knowing anything about them

>semantics

>wrong

But what about those fries tho?

Maybe try to watch a movie you are trying to shittalk about why are so retarded kill yourself i don't care for this turd but damn this why this board is so shit kill yourself

My favorite part is where he asked the kids if they recognize certain characters.

All of them point out Ronald McDonald but none of them know about Jesus. Then the cunt lower the picture and smugly stares at the camera, like he did something amazing and mind blowing.

>That white man looks nothing like a middle-eastern sunburnt semite.

Yeah, those kids were just black israelites and didn't recognize that fake ass white jesus

youtube.com/watch?v=fMwCfTBjLaw

>Macdonalds is bad for you!!!!

Outstanding documentary

It's a decent documentary. As OP said, it's good to show the movie to a class of kids because it's entertaining and it relates to health. Even if you think the point of the film is already obvious, at least give Spurlock some credit for going through that gauntlet.

In biology teachers show this shit and pass next days debunk, basic the "documentary " not only is full off nonsense but contradicts every scientific knowledge about biochemistry

P.s: fat head is amazing, people fell offended because is too harsh

Wanna try that again in readable English?

I eat fast food every day just about (Too lazy to pack a lunch) and I am 6ft1 205.

This is a normal day for me. I also go to the gym and lift+cardio but even if I didn't I would be fine. My most recent blood work was fine

Yes I drink a fuckload of water because of that sodium
Yes I eat veggies with my dinner (Usually a side salad with lettuce/tomato/onion/carrot/spinach dressed with vinegar, but I am too fucking lazy to add it

Losing weight probably because muscle mass becoming fat.

he is pure subhuman scum and McDonalds should have sued him for 6 million dollars for defamation. McDonalds can be part of a healthy nutritious diet.

Thas rite!

He actually talks about that in the movie, how dieting can have very different results from person to person including burning their muscle instead of fat. His BMI went down so he didn't suffer from muscle loss from that practice

I can't find the study but I remember reading about a university in Sweden that had a group of students do the same experiments and the results were not even close to Spurlock's. The main thing they noted is that it would have been nearly impossible for him to consume as many calories per day as he claimed.

Enjoy your future gout

1300 in fact, and he only order large soda 3 times in the month, by consensus (and nutritional guidelines) he eat at maximum of 3600 calories day (much, but not close to 5000 he says in the """"""""documentary""""""")

Vegetarians don't know math, in fact they don't know any science or logic

Hum.. you know, heart problems and diabetes are related with carbohydrates, right?