<font color="gold">Stolen from www.imdb.com , and I agree with most of it.

"Help! Help! The mean old corporations are stuffing me full of food! Save me government! Save me from myself!" - That's the message of this movie so it's sure to be a big hit with the fascist proponents of socialism that run amok at events like Sundance. (No wonder it was such a hit) Will this flick be anything more than a joke to clear thinking individuals? Doubtful!

The events of this movie seem highly suspicious. He claims to have gained 25 pounds in 30 days. To those who are not informed, the human body must have a surplus of 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat. This means he must have had a surplus of over 2900 calories per day. According to the McDonald's website a Big Mac - the universal yardstick of unhealthful food - contains 600 calories. To get that surplus you'd have to eat 4.8 extra Big Macs! Remember this is a SURPLUS, it means you have to eat that in addition to the normal amount of calories you'd have to eat in a day which would likely be somewhere between 2200-2500 for him! This means the guy's daily caloric intake would have to be over 5000 calories a day! The movie doesn't give the impression that his goal was to consume as much food as possible in 30 days. Instead, his goal is show how McDonald's used some sort of mind control to force him to eat what he did. When asked if he wanted it Supersized, he was a victim and had absolutely no power to say no. He wants to show how easily others can fall into this evil corporate trap! I hate to say it, but this seems to be a film on par with a Micheal Moore *ahem* documentary where inconvenient facts are ignored and convenient ones are fabricated on the fly. Gullible people who buy into his conclusion will not care about little details like facts, but anyone with an open mind will probably enjoy the ride like a B horror movie and feel smugly superior to those who actually bought it.

I'll save you a few bucks and explain why Americans have a problem with obesity. Unlike other cultures we have quick access to great tasting cheap food (Kidney Pie? Not here!). The American economy is the most modern in the world meaning we've "outsourced" labor-intense tasks to machines. From cubicles to robotics in factories to remote controls our modern life has reduced the amount of physical work we need to do. Healthful (and far cheaper) foods are still plentiful, but millions do not have the willpower to forsake short term convenience for their long term health, so when combined with a lifestyle that requires less physical output we gain weight.

Duh - not a difficult concept! Those who choose to be fit can still do so, and those who choose short term gratification will become a pile of lard.

BTW, if society ever degenerates to the point where people can successfully sue food corporations for their own dumb choices, will that mean corporations in the fitness industry will be able to sue their customers for their successes? Think about it; if you acquire great health from Gold's Gym shouldn't Gold's have a *right* to some of the wealth you will accumulate because of your improved health? You'll live longer (meaning you can work longer) and you'll need less of that expensive health care! Surely if a corporation can be at fault for making you obese then a corporation can be at fault for making you healthy! If they are going to be financially responsible for obesity then they should gain from "giving" people health! Of course that will never happen because this obesity nonsense if rooted in the anti-capitalist movement. What a shame we have so many ignorant people in this country who only see one of those two situations as absurd.</font>

the little inconvinient fact that this guy seems to ignore is that the amount of weight gained is a) only partly connected to the calories taken in, b) the amount of calories needed for a certain weight gain are very much depended on the person and c) the information that the weight gain was the least of the problems that guy had after the month. i mean his liver was pretty much done after it afaik...

also really healthy food is all in all not cheaper than fast food (you have to count the time to prepare too etc). i still think though, that people blaming mcd or other companies for their obesity problems should be given one over the head and sent to some eating councelling. plus the movie is a good way to make people aware of the problems of fastfood


oh, and the writer disqualified himself with the first paragraph, because it really gives the impression that he is very objective about the whole subject....

out of character troll posts are fucking retarded.

Originally posted by Mr. Burns
<font color="gold">Stolen from www.imdb.com , and I agree with most of it.

will that mean corporations in the fitness industry will be able to sue their customers for their successes? Think about it; if you acquire great health from Gold's Gym shouldn't Gold's have a *right* to some of the wealth you will accumulate because of your improved health? You'll live longer (meaning you can work longer) and you'll need less of that expensive health care! Surely if a corporation can be at fault for making you obese then a corporation can be at fault for making you healthy! If they are going to be financially responsible for obesity then they should gain from "giving" people health! </font>[/i] [/B]

I hope you don't actually think that was an accurate analogy. If so, you're not too bright. The fundamental flaw with your analogy: suing the fast food industry for health problems is an attempt to sue the people you think are responsible NEGATIVELY impacting your health. Whereas, the fitness industry suing you for making them making you healthy is suing for POSITIVE impacts your health. Another problem with the analogy even if it did work on some sort of rudimentary level (which it doesn't) is that there is a difference between customers suing companies veruses companies suing customers. A final flaw with your analogy, is that comparison is one that involves a doubledip. The fitness industry is already benefiting from your benefits because it means you will keep giving them money.

In reality, a suit against the fast food industry is much more analgous to suits against tobacco companies that it is to by the fitness industry against its customers.

Originally posted by severin
oh, and the writer disqualified himself with the first paragraph, because it really gives the impression that he is very objective about the whole subject....
Did you mean subjective about the whole thing?

Originally posted by Fattening Ass
out of character troll posts are fucking retarded. :rofl:


Well, I don't know if the guy on "Supersize Me" was trying to sway things one way or another. I think he was merely trying to be like a subject in an experiment and he just presented facts in this movie.

He didn't say, "oh, the government should control fast food."

serious. Jewel ian Teh pron konnoseeeurrrrr has done some out of charater posts. :(

Originally posted by Fattening Ass
serious. Jewel ian Teh pron konnoseeeurrrrr has done some out of charater posts. :( I think it was mostly accidentally?

Originally posted by The Ace of Aces


I hope you don't actually think that was an accurate analogy. If so, you're not too bright. The fundamental flaw with your analogy: suing the fast food industry for health problems is an attempt to sue the people you think are responsible NEGATIVELY impacting your health. Whereas, the fitness industry suing you for making them making you healthy is suing for POSITIVE impacts your health. Another problem with the analogy even if it did work on some sort of rudimentary level (which it doesn't) is that there is a difference between customers suing companies veruses companies suing customers. A final flaw with your analogy, is that comparison is one that involves a doubledip. The fitness industry is already benefiting from your benefits because it means you will keep giving them money.

In reality, a suit against the fast food industry is much more analgous to suits against tobacco companies that it is to by the fitness industry against its customers.

<font color="gold">I actually do kind of agree with you about the shoddy analogy (I did not write this, BTW), but the rest is pretty accurate.

For the record, my favorite part: "Unlike other cultures we have quick access to great tasting cheap food (Kidney Pie? Not here!). The American economy is the most modern in the world meaning we've "outsourced" labor-intense tasks to machines. From cubicles to robotics in factories to remote controls our modern life has reduced the amount of physical work we need to do. Healthful (and far cheaper) foods are still plentiful, but millions do not have the willpower to forsake short term convenience for their long term health, so when combined with a lifestyle that requires less physical output we gain weight.

Duh - not a difficult concept! Those who choose to be fit can still do so, and those who choose short term gratification will become a pile of lard."</font>

Originally posted by undivinemartyr
I think it was mostly accidentally? i hope so ~ !

Originally posted by undivinemartyr
Did you mean subjective about the whole thing? it was actually meant to sound sarcastic....