Talk:Super Size Me/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under See Also

Under See Also added a link to Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. Shploo 15:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added in the reference to this book at the beginning of this article since Fast Food Nation had a profound impact on MS (and was published much earlier than his film)Ivankinsman (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there also a guy in the U.S. who did the Super Size Me diet but also exercised everyday and managed to lose a lot of weight?

"In New Zealand, a controversial experiment involved someone eating nothing but Middle Eastern food for a month and became an Islamic terrorist." This sound like too much of a joke... I can't confirm it either way though, so I'll leave it --203.167.184.87 01:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


`Eccentricity' (instead of `severity') would be a better word to use (see the article history)... –Matt 01:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


McDutchman

After the release of Super Size Me, the Dutch reporter Wim Meij (Algemeen Dagblad) did a sort of similar experiment. For one month, he ate 3 times a day at McDonald’s and didn’t eat anything/anywhere else.

But he didn’t eat anything on the menu. And he usually just ordered a salad. He didn’t necessarely decide to have it super-sized when invited to.

After the 30 days, he had lost 12 kilo (over 26 pounds). His belly circumference lowered by 5 cm (2 inch). His blood pressure lowered. In short: he was much healthier immediately after the experiment than before (conclusion of Jaap Fogteloo, an internist of Leids Universitary Medical Centre).

Should this be included in the article? Source: Algemeen Dagblad, Dutch newspaper.

- Adhemar

A similar thing was done by an Australian journalist, but I'm having trouble finding the references. It was either the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian. In his case he followed Spurlock's program exactly, except that he only ate to satiety instead of making himself sick, and he continued at his existing level of exercise (which was very light). He also lost weight (only a little). Securiger 14:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Mogran wanted to make a point with this movie, and he set himself up to gain weight. he took it to the extreme to make a point! AND he also talked about the importantce of exercise in a persons life as well as the importance of eating in moderation. -I Hate Stupid People

"Mogran" hates stupid people

Let it be noted that the size of almost everything on McDonald's menu in the Netherlands is smaller than it is in the USA. For example, the 'medium' size fries in the Netherlands is the same as a 'small' size in the States. I'm also not sure there even was a Supersize option in the Netherlands.
Who the heck ever eats only salads at McD's anyway? -Shai-kun 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Prices are higher in the Netherlands also, they get a worse deal all around. However, Super Size Me failed to control for Calories, he ate even beyond when he was satisfied, and insisted on eating three meals per day, in a culture where a lot of people skip meals.--Poodleboy 14:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

These references to other experiments are pointless in this article to the extent that they do not simulate eating habits of "normal" people. You can loose weight on a 100% fat diet if you hardly eat any of it. Their only point seem to be to contradict this documentary, and not as Morgan does, to adress eating habits and their consecuences. I was most shocked by the guy who drunk at least 4l of Coke a day, thats about half a kilo of sugar!!!Cgonzalezdelhoyo 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused tenses

The article frequently changes tense from past ("Spurlock, age 33, was healthy and slim") to present ("Spurlock's height is 6 feet 2 inches (1.88 m)."), in mid-paragraph and sometimes in mid-sentence. This is very unprofessional-looking and needs fixing. In an effort not to tread on toes, I will give the article's normal maintainers a chance to make this fix before I do. 

       I think you misunderstood the intent of the author.
       Spurlock was slim and healthy before the experiment. That changed over its course.
       Hence the past tense. "Had been healthy and slim" may be better.
       On the other hand, he was 6'2" before the experiment and after and still is.
       So the present is correct.

this is biased

This page is biased against McDonalds and may cause a loss of business.

- Concerned citizen (Please, spare me the "concerned citizen" title, more like McDonald representative. What average citizen cares about a corporation's profit margin?) Darlington

The article does need some work to meet encyclopeadic standards. It's failings, however, cannot possibly lose McDonalds any business. Preposterous.

The page doesn’t appear to be biased so the bias notice has been removed. Feel free to discuss this on the board before adding a bias tag as this is an encyclopaedia and not a place for people to air their personal views.

Regards,

MrEvil root@pcdevils.com


The article does possess bias. It makes no mention of the fact that he was eating two to two and a half times the RDA of 2000-2500 calories. It makes no mention of the fact that he curtailed ALL exercise because that was how he perceived the 'average American'. It has numerous quotes but no sources, merely generic information such as "One physician said". It fails to mention that there was no medical evidence that the diet caused liver dysfunction, nor that the clinical depression may very well have been caused by his own sense of body-image being distorted by what he was doing. Basically, it lists everything that seems like it could support the view he was trying to foster and, except for the tiny rebuttal section at the bottom of the article, makes no attempt to talk about the controversy or even back-up the findings. Nezu Chiza 02:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree, he talks with an expert about the average activity level of most Americans. the expert indicates that using a pedometer most citizens take 5,000 steps a day. He says that he trys to stimulate the activity of most Americans who don't exercise. Also, he never claims that this is a clinical trial clearly establishing cause and effect, he simply offers his personal experience to stimulate conversation about obesity issues. The surprise and shock of the doctors monitoring his case indicates that the physical changes in that period were very unusual, and the only abnormal factor as compared to most other citizens was the change in his diet. It may be impossible to generalize his results to include more people without a controlled trial, but the data clearly shows the diethad an abnormal effect on his liver function. As for "generic information," there are numerous named sources throughout the movie and it follows his progress with three named doctors monitoring physical changes. Darlington
I dont quite agree with you, the experiment he carries out is not a supervised clinical trial, but rather a back drop to discuss the obesity epidemic in america and its possible causes, mainly fast food and education. In the documentary we are shown medical evidence of his liver problems when his doctor discusses his analysis results. I would agree that it should be mentioned that he was ingesting in excess of 5000 calories a day, along with some other facts, like the school meal with close to 1200calories.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I thought he was a vegan? Wouldn't that have an impact on what he was introducing his digestive system to? If you haven't eaten a certain type of food (meat/eggs, greasy or not in this case is still meat and eggs), your body is not exactly going to be prepared to ingest it. Kb5694 August 14, 2005


You are mistaken. His girlfriend Alex is a vegan chef. The film includes a big section where Spurlock argues with her about his love of meat. -The DVD also -The DVD also includes a section where he briefly goes vegan after the 30 days are over to get cholesterol down, then it states that he started eating meat again. Maybe that's where the confusion is coming in. Darlington

He is still transitioning from a very healthy diet to a obiously not healthy diet, with out a buffer zone. This was the point of the movie. With out a dramtic change there would be no movie, and the effect would not have gotten his point across, McDonalds should be eaten in moderation, like eveything else, and that people need to excerise more if they want to be healthy.

-High School Kid Who Likes This Movie

if by biased you mean he ate mcdonalds for three meals a day and got fat. then yes.

This article is indeed biased, as is the whole movie concept which fails to take into account that no-one is supposed to eat the same type of food all the time. Try eating just lettuce all day for 30 days. (Lenzar 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Lenzar, my friend, you have indeed nailed the point. Spurlock was biased alright. He was already convinced that the typical McDonald's Meal is beyond unhealthy right from the get-go, and he let his body take 30 days of abuse just to prove his point. And, lo and behold, he did proved that eating nothing but McDonald's 24-7 is just a very slow form of suicide. Everybody already knew that... except thousands of overweight people (millions worldwide) who actually have McMeals two or three times at day - I'm sure you know at least one such case - not to mention the kids that will follow their steps. Nobody eats just lettuce for 30 days (that's an unhealthy diet too) but more than a few are happy to follow the movie's experiment... for the rest of their lives. The movie is about them. 200.56.166.13 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Corrigiendo nomás


It seems to me that the "Smoking Fry" second section is biased toward mcdonalds itself. Fix?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.50.98 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bowling for Morgan

Can somebody take a look into BowlingForMorgan.com and give a small summary. At least describe the methodological differences and results between the two movies. Do it for people with very slow internet connection like me (The movie is about 120Mb!!).--Janarius 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Might want to take a lok at this other site. http://www.supersizeme-thedebate.co.uk/

I looked into that site and it isn't what I hoped what it would be. It's more like a PR rebuttal for the film from Mcdonald's. --Janarius 02:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyone opposed to the addition of a section regarding this site? The information presented on it is horrendous (either flagrantly untrue or giving citation without any sources), and very plainly biased in favor of McDonalds (in spite of dressing itself up as though it was about to present a balanced and objective argument). {unsigned|142.179.140.215}
Go ahead. But be careful that you don't put in primary research. Han-Kwang 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good as it is now, with different examples of people going on the diet.Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

False Claims

"Finally, his severe liver dysfunction was never shown to be linked to his diet, and his clinical depression and sexual dysfunction may have been natural consequences of his forcing himself to change his self-image to what he considered a negative one. Yet no attempt to address any of these issues has been made."

Okay, This part isn't even true. The liver dysfunction was linked to the fast food diet, at least by Dr. Isaac(s?), the general practitioner whom Morgan visited regularly. Now, if you'd like to challenge the analysis of a doctor, that's fine with me, however a suitable explaination was provided in the film, so I'm editing that.

Additionally, it has been shown that people who have a very high amount sugar, fat, and chemicals in their diet can begin to develop a dependence on it, and can exhibit a type of "depression" when they do not have said sugar, fat and chemicals in their system. This was never diagnosed as depression, so it isn't "clinical", and if it were a result of poor self image due to the high fat diet, that does not explain why the "depression" would go away when Morgan ate McDonalds. In fact, if there were poor self image, his "depression" would, if anything, become worse when he ate McDonalds. This too will be edited.


Rebuttal experiments - mentioning Auto tobacco stances

Since both social attitudes of Smoking and automobile drive-through culture are mentioned in Super Size me it is worthwhile to mention that the firm that financed a critical film is also financed by Auto and Tobacco industry money. --8bitJake 20:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that relating tobacco to fast food.. although it fast food may not be as addictive as nicotine however you have to remember, addiction is not a problem.. its the health problems with addiction that make it become a problem. And fast food has clearly caused health problems so i agree that fast food should be put in the same league as tobacco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualvalent (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of weight gain/nausea/health...

I'd love to see a movie where someone eats 5,000 calories of *salad* every day and how it would effect their body.

==

100 grams of Lettuce has 13 calories so to get to 5000 cals you would need to eat 38461 grams of salade. not possible! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.171.251.49 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Most of the mass of Lettuce is water, so you could just remove the water from it and eat the pulpy, wooden mass thats left. Exposing to a vacuum or freeze drying might be able to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.108.233 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

McDonalds

Even without seeing that movie or even hearing of it, any dumbass can tell that McDonalds is not healthy for you. AllStarZ 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone that has not ever seen the movie you might want to do some research on it before passing judgment on it. --8bitJake 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think AllStarZ was "passing judgement" on McDonalds, not the film. I haven't seen every documentary on the Third Reich but any dumbass can tell you that, on the whole, the Nazis were not pleasant people to hang around. And its true, I dont need to see this documentary to be able to say that eating McDonalds as a primary food source is a bad idea. Yanqui9 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I do find the results of that experience a bit hard to believe... of course, being French, so having a large distance to walk till the nearest mcArches, and never having known about supersize... I may not know exactly what he went through... On the other hand, I'm prime obesity material myself, and am not sure I'd react so terribly to an all-fastfood diet... does anybody know where I could "talk" with the author and other interested parties to get better information? --Svartalf 15:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Bowling for Morgan he constantly tries to call Spurlock and his minions to schedule an interview, but never gets called back. Spurlock is the author. Might be relevent to your last point.Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

Exactly why does this article have a spoiler warning? I say it doesn't need one, so the spoiler warning should go. This article is about a documentary, not a theatrical play or movie - The purpose of a documentary is to educate, and therefore its contents/storyline shouldn't be kept secret to those who haven't seen it. /Magore 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I just took it out. No need to have a spoiler warning for a documentary. Brian Schlosser42 18:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This a documentary? I thought it was a propaganda piece ala Eisenstein. Le sigh.

I’m watching the documentary NOW

First of all the documentaries objective is to explore the causes of obesity, its relation with fast food and children. Obesity is defined as an epidemic, being the cause of severe health problems which can and do cause death.

Morgan's objective in his experiment is to see if eating McDonalds, as the primary fast food icon, is the fastest way to become an obese American, once seen how obesity has considerably increased in modern America.

- The increase in fast food restaurants is correlated to that of obesity.

- The increasing size of rations over time i.e. chips or drinks and how modern American cars have cup holders to accommodate 2litre cups.

- It is argued that obesity will overcome tobacco as the first cause of death.

- Tobacco companies used to make chocolate cigarettes for children, hoping they would buy their brand when they grew up. This is compared with fast food advertising and making an emphasis in attracting children.

- How meals in schools respond to fast food traits and in some occasions can be seen as exceeding 1000 calories. Also, much of it is pre-prepared, instead as cooked in the school.


The experiment

In minute 9:13, his general doctor predicts that he will gain weight, unless he "cheated" and only asked for salads. Hence mentioning in the article those experiments which show that one can loose weight and maintain a health diet using McDonalds are a cheat on Morgan's experiment, as it seems they restrict themselves to salads and do a serious control of calories consumed, whereas Morgan is trying to get obese "the American way". Those studies should not be mentioned as criticism to this Documentary, this is a documentary about obesity.

The doc goes on to say that about 60% of Americans do not exercise, and Mark Fenton, a former editor of Walking Magazine, says that office workers who use their car and lifts to get to work would walk about 2500/3000 paces a day, and that to be a normal american he should not walk more that 5000. New Yorkers on the other hand walk up to 7/8 km a day, which is his case.

The rules on his experimental diet are: 1 - Can only Super Size when asked 2 - Can only eat food from McDonalds's, water included. (Presumably he has to finish it all) 3 - Has to eat everything on the menu at least once (within the 30 days) 4 - Must eat 3 meals a day, breakfast, lunch and dinner, no exceptions

An additional rule not explicitly specified, is that he will emulate an average American who does not do exercise nor walks a lot. After 3 days a dietitian estimates he is eating 5000calories a day instead of the 2500 she recommended. 9 days later she states that he is still eating in excess of 200% of his calorie needs.

A panel of doctors monitored his progress and were at one point alarmed at his cholesterol and liver problems. He gained 11Kg in that month, ingesting over 14kg of sugar and 5.5kg of fat.


Legal issues

An interview with John F. Banzhaf III, Law Professor, George Washington University, who spearheaded the successful suit on tobacco companies and points to the way McDonalds tries to attract children as small as 2: Ronald McDonald, HappyMeal, PlayPlace, Birthday Parties, gift Toys and Ronald McDonald cartoons on TV. Later a further point is made about children and advertising, specially when children recognize almost immediately fast food characters and song.

Certain arguments from McDonald Lawyers are cited: In relation to the suit brought by 2 teenagers: "McDonalds' arguments that (...) the dangers of its fare were well-known..." The judge said "the complaints must (...) show that a McDiet is a substantial factor (of the plaintiff's obesity and health problems) despite these (cultural and socioeconomic) variable" He later added: "(if) plaintiffs can allege that McDonalds products' intended use is to be eaten for every meal of every day, and that McDonalds is or should be aware that eating McDonalds' product for every meal of every day is unreasonably dangerous, they may be able to state a claim."

In relation to chicken nuggets McDonalds' lawyers said that "it is also a matter of common knowledge that any processing that its food undergo serve to make them more harmful than unprocessed foods"


Sugar

100grams per 1litre of soft drink, i.e. 33g per can. or 200g in a 2L cup.

A member of the Board of Education, L.A. Unified School Districts says that they have banned the selling of soft drinks in schools because a normal child would ingest a jarful of sugar from these alone. 2 cans a day would total close to half a kilo of sugar in drinks a week.

Everything in McDonalds Menu, except light Coke, fries, Mc Nuggets, minced meat, hot dogs, coffee and tea. All other, including Mc Salads! Have sugar.

Sugar is also treated as a drug, along with caffeine and opiates in cheese.

So what if they have sugar? Fruit has sugar. Sugar's found naturally all over the place, why blame the fast food industry for having it in their food? Where is sugar treated as a drug? Jarful of sugar? Please. How many grams of sugar are in a jar of sugar, and how big is the jar? Pretty biased quote, you got there, along with it being illogical. I'd prefer sugar in the food instead of Aspartame or Splenda, but I won't include my sweetener preference in this article.

The most shocking case is that of Bruce Howlett, who we see in a hospital bed awaiting stomach surgery to treat his obesity. He is diabetic and hypertensive. He claims to drink 6 to 8litres of soft drink a day, that is between 600gr and 800gr of sugar in liquid alone, a day!!! After the operation he looses 50kg and stops taking insulin for his diabetes-

Though the documentary does not explore the dangers and caveats of sugar, I recall reading that the World Health Organisation has attempted to do research into it, but that lobbying in Washington has delivered threats through the US government to stop and not publish them, with the cancelling its funding if continued. Unfortunately, none of this is mentioned in the article about [[[sugar]]]. If I have time I will find the references.

Personally I have stopped drinking soft drinks, limiting myself to diet alternatives which are sugar free.

Side comments: Morgan tells his vegan girlfriend in 1:04 that he loves meat and has no intention of becoming a vegan. After the experiment is over he turns to a vegan diet for 5 weeks as a "detox" diet.


Conclusion

I hope the above summary will help improve the current article.

Morgan acknowledges several times that his McDonalds diet is extreme, but feels it is justified to some extend by the eating practices of obese Americans.

He has tried, in my opinion successfully, to establish a clear link between the increase obesity and fast food, between fast food and children, and between children and obesity.

We all know and knew that smocking kills, however the successful lawsuits against tobacco companies was not based on this, rather it was proven that tobacco companies engineered the composition of cigarettes to make them more addictive. Similarly, we all know that fast food, like sweets, are not very healthy, but unless it is proven that fast food companies are designing their products to harm us, they will not be judged accordingly.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed comments for innacuracy

In the controversy section I have removed the following point as not being accurate with what the documentary actually says:

Spurlock made no attempt to provide concrete sources for many of his facts, such as his claim that the average American only walks 2500 steps a day. The averages, according to differing sources vary widely from 2000 to 7192. [2] [3] The average American takes about 5,600 steps a day and engages in about 10 minutes of physical activity and gains one to three pounds a year, according to James O. Hill, professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. [4]

Spurlock does not claim that the average american walks 2500 steps a day, rather Mark Fenton, Former Editor of Walking Magazine, claims that those americans who work in offices, drive to work and use lifts, take 2500 / 3000 steps. He follows to say that if he wants to feel like and average american, he should limit to about 5000 steps a day. Hence you can see that the point I am removing has his facts about the film wrong.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the phrase "Spurlock makes it to day 30 and achieves his goal. In thirty days, he "Supersized" his meals nine times along the way (five of which were in Texas, the state with the highest number of "fat cities" in the U.S., according to one somewhat controversial study). All three doctors are surprised at the degree of deterioration in Spurlock's health." -- my issue is with the "fat cities" study...what study and where is it cited?

Is this really Controversial

I contest the following point: His experiment includes forcing himself to eat three meals a day, even when not hungry which can cause rapid weight gain due to the stretching of the stomach. This is also one of the common problems in persons who are obese due to over eating. His diet was also between two and three times the Recommended Dietary Allowance of 2000 to 2500 calories (8,400 to 10,500 kilojoules). (Note-Morgan did not say that he must eat 'only' three meals a day. He often consumed large milkshakes as desserts.)

I do not understand how this can be controversial, it is the point of Spurlock to embark on a road to obesity. Hence I find it should be included in the plot summary, but it is definitely not a controversy, nor a criticism.

I hope I am being clear, he does consume just over 5000calories on average, according to his diatetian, and he is obviously doing it on purpose. Where is the controversy?

Please comment before I include it with the rest of the plot summary.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Morgan also quit exercising which also may have been a large contribution to the reason he gained so much weight in such a little time. Maybe if he continued his regular exercise routine the results would have been different.

Same as above, this is a fact of his experiment, if he had continued to exercise it would not have been an experiment into how a healthy person can embark on the road to obesity.

I believet the editor in question should check the film again. The experiment he carries on himself is not to find out if MacDonalds can be part of a regular healthy diet. Again I do not see the controversy.


After the film's release, it was rumored that Spurlock was a vegetarian prior to filming the documentary, leading critics to argue that his body was unable to adjust to the two completely different eating styles. However, while his girlfriend is vegan, and although he used a refined vegan diet to "detox" after his 30-day diet of food found only on a McDonald's menu [2], Spurlock himself is neither a vegetarian nor vegan, as mentioned in the film.

Is there encyclopedic value to this? Should it not just be trimmed and included in the plot summary as saying that its Spurlock's girlfriend who is vegan? If Spurlock was vegetarian he would have committed the ultimate vegie sin, ja ja ja!Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Rebuttal Experiments

I disagree with the title of this section. Spurlocks experiment was to see how an abusive diet on McDonalds alone could lead to obesity. A rebuttal would then be a similarly extravagant diet that does not lead to obesity.I have changed it to "Alternative Experiments" to present a more NPOV.

In particular, all these experiments used controlled menu choices and carefull diets drawn from Mc Donalds menu, mainly in Europe. The conclusion should hence not be that Spurlock is wrong in claiming that abuse of fast food leads to obesity, but that some fast foods can form a healthy diet under controlled conditions.

I am also editing the first paragraph as follows:

In the Netherlands Wim Meij, a reporter with the Algemeen Dagblad (a Dutch newspaper), did a similar experiment. However, instead of choosing just any meal from the menu, he carefully chose his menu. He actually came out at least as healthy as he was before he started his 30-day experiment. He lost 6.5 kg (14 lb) and also other things (like his blood pressure) were affected positively[citation needed].

And the new version:

In the Netherlands Wim Meij, a reporter with the Algemeen Dagblad (a Dutch newspaper), did a another experiment. He too limited himself to eating at McDonalds, but instead of choosing just any meal from the menu, he carefully chose it, with an emphasis on salads. He came out at least as healthy as he was before he started his 30-day experiment and lost 6.5 kg (14 lb) in the process. [citation needed].

I hope you will see my interest in preserving NPOV.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Spurlock, did not choose "just any meal" as your text states. He had favorites, such as milk shakes that he chose more often. People seem to be generalizing beyond the scope of Spurlock's "experiment", from "abuse" of fast food leads to obesity, to mere use of fast food leading to obesity.--Poodleboy 10:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I agree he "abused" McDonalds. However "just any meal" was part of the article and I have not edited that. How would you word it? He did eat meals and he did drink milk shakes.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The "just any meal" is meant to differentiate what Win Meij did from what Spurlock did, It's inaccuracy is not in how it characterizes what Wim Meij did, but in how it understates in a dismissive tone, what Spurlock did. The problem can be correct with more detail, i.e., instead of "instead of choosing just any meal from the menu", one could say, "instead of forcing himself to supersize and eat three meals even when he wasn't hungry...", we don't have to repeat all the details, but the dismissive phrase is obviously wrong.--[User:Poodleboy|Poodleboy]] 07:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we avoid mentioning Spurlock experiment, which at this stage in the article should be quite clear, i.e whe can leave it as: He too limited himself to eating at McDonalds, but followed a carefully prerpared diet with an emphasis on salad and a low calorie intake. He came out at least as healthy as he was before he started his 30-day experiment and lost lost 6.5 kg (14 lb) in the process It must have been a "low" calorie intake as he lost weight... I do agree that Spurlock abused milkshakes, but it is also true that he ate "standard" McDonald meals, and note that he never asked for supersize but was obliged to eat it if offered to him. He may have forced himself but then I doubt obese people leave much (I didnt:-).Cgonzalezdelhoyo 11:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This article says in the Summary section of the Experiment section that Salads at McDonalds sometimes had more calories then their hamburgers. Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. It's because of the added calories of dressing, meat, etc. The McDonald's in my town recently had to put a poster up of the nutrition label for the new Asian salad because they were getting so many complaints. The new Asian salad has, I think, more calories than a Big Mac. --pIrish 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, remember, one of the rules Spurlock was playing by was that he had to sample every item on the menu at least once, and he couldn't consume anything that wasn't from McDonald's. So he put himself in a really unlikely situation right from the start. I really doubt there are many people in the world who eat McDonald's on such a basis. Kasreyn 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
About [citation needed]. Algemeen Dagblad does not seem to have an on-line archive, but I found this from the Flemish newspaper Het Nieuwsblad. It's in Dutch: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Archief/Artikel/index20040812GIF8030J.aspx. — 193.178.209.214 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section sucks

In particular because no references are given to the two bullet points, and the second point is erroneous as Spurlock did keep a record of what he was eating, that which he gave his dietitian who said he was eating in excess of 5000 calories a day. Furthermore these two bullet points seem original research to me and are outside the encyclopedic scope. Only the last paragraph is worth keeping, and it is not a controversial issue. Hence Im gonna remove the whole section and incoroporate the last paragraph somewhere else. Comments welcome.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've heard some of these criticisms floating around the net before, and some of them seem interesting, but we can't do without sources just because something sounds likely. Kasreyn 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed too. It needs sources or should be removed. 89.57.29.208 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Subway

I think this http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/subwayad.asp should be added and Spurlock's reaction http://blogs.indiewire.com/morganspurlock/archives/001278.html

89.57.29.208 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


NPOV

I've added the NPOV tag because this article seems slightly biased against Mickey D's. I'm not say this because of the content of the movie, because I've seen the movie and know what it's talking about here, but some of the side notes seems un-objective. Remove it if you think I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter.

Indescrepensi (or w/e)

"Text at the conclusion of the movie states that it took Spurlock five months to lose 20 lb (9 kg) and another nine months to return to his original weight."

"After the completion of the project, it would take Spurlock a total of 9 months to return to his normal weight of 185 pounds."

So was it 9 months or 14 months? Lovok 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

controversy section

The controversy section does a poor job of describing the controversy over the film. It basically reads like Wikipedia making arguments against the points made in the film. Language like "his case would have been stronger if...", "The end result, however, is that we can only assume...", and "Again, at times it appears he is..." is not NPOV and is also first person language inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Cab88 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It definitely looks like WP:OR to me, not just unsourced information. Jesuschex 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Over a month has passed now without anyone introducing sources or defending the so-called controversy section. I am therefore going to delete the entire section, because it is OR and seems to be without merit to the article (and that's a euphemism, in my opinion). If anyone doesn't concur, please post here before reverting. Subversive 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

About the rules.....

When is it said he must have a salad every ten days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avenger1000 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 October 2006.

Just Curious

I read somewhere saying that it's virtually impossible to gain 25 pounds of fat in one month, or extremely difficult, is this true?--24.91.161.79 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't really hard at all. It's just that no one except actors do it, because it requires serious overeating. Most people gain no more than a few pounds a month (and that's fairly high). Generally obesity is a consistent gain of weight over the course of decades, if you gained 25 pounds in a month, every month, you'd die pretty quickly. It's about as easy as losing 25 pounds in a month. So I guess it's not hard, but it takes some work and some discipline. Jdev 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Jdev

Point of View

This article seems a bit POV. Consider this:

Various similar experiments were made in response to Super Size Me, in an effort to provide alternative scenarios and/or refute the impressions made by the film. These experiments, however, were mainly balanced diets and healthy eating programs, capable of demonstrating that it is possible to eat from the McDonald's menu without upsetting one's health, but hardly capable of illustrating the healthiness of a typical McDonald's consumer's choice (the quintessential "burger, Coke and fries" meal).

Is the author implying that Spurlock's diet in SSM was that of a typical McDonald's consumer?

More typical than the "rebuttal" experiments, in any case. Spurlock did ate what a person normally ask for when eating in McDonald's, even if he exaggerated in the quantities involved. Those 'similar experiments' about doing exercise, eating right and just occasionally going to McDonald's to get a small burger and a bottle of water are clearly habits of a healthy, physicaly fit person, likely to avoid fast food altogether if possible. Hardly an example of a typical, regular McDonald's client. Granted, not every McDonald's regular consumer is a morbidly obese slob, and not everyone will endulge in greasy food all month long like Spurlock, but many do - you probably know a guy who does, by his/her first name - and even those who don't overeat like that are often inclined to ask for the forementioned "burger, coke and fries" meal when eating in McDonald's or some such place. The largest they can afford, if possible. 200.56.166.13 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Corrigiendo nomás


 == UMAGA??? ==

What, exactly, is a picture of Umaga, the WWE wrestler, doing his Samoan Spike to Kamala, another wrestler, doing here? --Soulmaster

Claims made in the "Impact" Section

"The corporation did, however, issue a press release on their website, denouncing Spurlock's film and blaming the filmmaker for being a part of the problem, and not the solution.[citation needed]"

"McDonald's placed a 30-second ad spot in the opening trailers of all viewings of Super Size Me and also offered to pay movie theatres to allow McDonald's employees to distribute apples to patrons as they exited the film.[citation needed]"

These outrageous claims need citations or to be removed. I have a hard time believing them.

Does anyone mind telling me what the hell a Chicken Mcgrill is? I know what a Mcchicken is and i also know what Grilled ranch BLT's, Grilled Club Sandwiches, and Grilled Classic Sandwiches are, But the Chicken Mcgrill just baffles me. noah

Burger King?

I glanced through this article, and it seems that someone replaced all of the McDonald's references with "Burger King". Seems like vandalism to me, so I fixed a few of them, till I realized it was pervasive through the entire article. I hate to replace all of the references, because I haven't seen the film for a while now, so I am unsure if some of the "Burger King" references should remain in some cases. However, there are some pretty blatant errors... - anybody noticed? 71.218.211.98

McDonalds changed it's menu to include healthier items?

I worked for McDonalds in the early 90's. They have had salads since long before 2004, and the grilled chicken sandwich, as well. ```Jon Robertson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.109.110.179 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


A little while after the movie came out, McDonalds came out with their "adult happy meals", which were basically prepackaged healthy meal items like salad with a bottle of water as a side. Along with the adult happy meals they gave out a pedometer as a prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

salad every 10 meals

When listening to the audio commentary on the DVD, I heard a new rule: he had to eat a salad every ten meals. I'll add that, unless someone objects.

Fredik Nyström Experiment Veracity?

Is this section even true? Students were forced to increase fast food calorie intake while limiting movement, and they improved their cholesterol? I highly doubt this is factual, and the lack of citation doesn't help. Seems like this should go if a citation isn't provided. -JoeTrumpet 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I love this section:

Criticism

Critics of the film, such as McDonald's, argue that the results were because the author intentionally consumed an average of 5,000 calories per day and did not exercise, and that the results would have been the same regardless of the source of the overeating. It could be argued that he targeted McDonald's because it is the largest and most successful fast-food chain, and that he was more interested in presenting sensationalistic and self-promotional "journalism" than in actually presenting facts.[4]

The film addresses such objections by highlighting that a part of the reason for Spurlock's deteriorating health was not just the high calorie intake but also the high quantity of fat relative to vitamins and minerals in the McDonald's menu, which is not dissimilar in that regard to the nutritional content of the menus of most other U.S. fast-food chains or processed, frozen, or canned foods. However, the nutritional side of the diet was not fully explored in the film because of the closure, during the 30 days, of the clinic which was monitoring this aspect. Spurlock claimed he was trying to imitate what an average diet for a regular eater at McDonald's, for a person who would get little to no exercise, would do to them. But it is highly unlikely that 5,000 calories per day is an average diet for a typical consumer of McDonald's or any other food source. It is also unlikely that many McDonald's customers eat there three times per day. Morgan actually said that he was eating in thirty days what the average customer eats in a year. An additional criticism of the experiment is that Spurlock was previously on a nearly vegan diet(his girlfriend was a vegan, he was not strictly one) before beginning this experiment, and the sudden change from this to a diet containing meat such as McDonald's shocked his body. Further Spurlock stated that on average he walked 10 blocks to and then from work a day plus all his other daily travel on foot. Spurlock took his body from a healthy daily work out to none at all in conjunction with his massive shift in diet.

I totally agree.

Missing the point

Spurlock is quite clear in his own commentary that he was engaged in an unreasonable diet. Nevertheless, it is impossible to produce that liver chart eating carrots and celery. Clearly he was attempting to dramatize something more likely to slowly kill you over a decade or two. His more credible material concerned the politics of corporate advertising, the rising epidemic of obesity in America and its cost to society, easy access to nutritional information, supermarket design, school cafeterias, and the benefits of physical education. But this article hardly touches on any of that. The stunt in the middle gets all the attention. The article would be better served by pointing out from the beginning that the movie focusses attention around a dramatic stunt with a largely foregone outcome (although the speed and magnitude are certainly thought provoking), interspersed with a lot of commentary about various social and corporate forces at work in the recent epidemic of so many Americans eating themselves into disease. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans with diets as bad as this one: a couple of mocha fraps, a few chocolate bars, and a post dinner trip to DQ combined with some heavy meals is all it takes. MaxEnt 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't have kids?

in the article it says he lost the ability to have children. this film was made in 2004. he had a child in 2006, if I'm not mistaken. I should delete this, correct? The Umbrella Corporation 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He didn't loose the ability to have children, he lost the ability to get an erection. Obviously he recovered after the experiment.203.129.142.68 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He did not lose the ability to hold an erection actually. In the movie, it shows his girlfriend talking about there sexual activity, and it says that he is less entergetic. She says that he gets it up there, definitly, but he is less entergetic, and gets tired easier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.144.221 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandal deletion

A large amount of content was deleted by a vandal, which I just restored, even through I'm not certain the article is improved by the restored material (portions of which I editted for accuracy some while ago). MaxEnt (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttle video?

I read in a magazine article a while back that McDonalds was going to try and create, or at least fund a rebuttal documentary, one that had the person eating the same 'McDiet' and yet losing weight. What happened to this? I don't have the time to read the whole article, so... --Is this fact...? 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bowel Movements

Does anyone know if there any criticisms about the fact that he never once mentioned any effects on his bowel movements? As far as I recall from seeing the film he nevers mentions it despite the fact we get to hear about everything else, including his erectile problems. Surely such a huge change in diet would have an effect yet he says nothing. If he became say, constipated, and took laxatives, shouldn't he inform us of that? What if there were medical side effects from heavy laxative use, like say, increased blood pressure? The omission is strange and if criticisms have been made they should be included in the article.Neelmack (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC) McD's is bad for you. Don't get caught up in the details. Have a meal there, take a nap, and then react to it. Look around you, obese people are everywhere. We have more "all-you-can-eat" buffets than anyone. Catch on! Ask yourself, Do I need to continue eating? Then answer NO!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.176.74 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest Skeptoid

I don't really want to wade into this topic myself as my first real article building exercise, but the Skeptoid podcast I'm listening to right now (#88) contains quite a bit of analysis (of a skeptical nature) of this film has some interesting observations that somebody more familiar might want to add. I can link if desirable.Cool moe dee 345 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a full transcript of said episode. It is a good summary of some of the more interesting points criticizing this documentary. 71.246.94.171 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vomit scene

My friends thought the vomit scene in the parking lot on day 2 was all acted out. They think Morgan wasn't sick to his stomach and that they used fake puke to spice up the movie. Why someone do fake vomiting and how would it be possible?

Chances are, he actually vomited. He wasn't used to that kind of food and he had a ton of it all at once. I wasn't surprised at all. The idea that he may have "fake" vomited is original research and cannot be verified, which means it can't be included. Hypothetically, if it was fake, he could have faked it to make it more dramatic and it's really not all that hard to make oneself throw up. That said, I think it's a bit far-fetched to think that Morgan did this. --132 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I response to this film I ate 1 1/2 Quarter Pounders at MCD'S and threw up almost immediately down the shirt of a man who just so happened to be the manager. Well, I'm not sorry. But even if morgan didnt really throw up, i cant imagine he'd have been feeling too great afterwards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.233.240 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smoking Fry

I think the criticism is fair, if unsourced. The original author did provide a scientific source for his claim. Instead of simply deleting it, let's put a citation needed or source needed type tag for the section. I'm going to add the paragraphs back in. Before removing it again, let's handle determine its fate here in the discussion and by a vote. Thanks. Mindme (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Compare it to the example in WP:SYN. It's quite possible that the criticism is accurate, but I don't think that as currently written (and unsourced) it belongs in Wikipedia. —KCinDC (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
From wp:syn
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
You're right. It does fail this. The author of the original smoking fry criticism paragraphs may be entirely correct but he has not linked a notable published source that comments on this topic. Mindme (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this deletion, but I'm not sure why the previous paragraph wasn't deleted at the same time for the same reason. —KCinDC (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So exagerated...

I mean, who in the world eats at McDonald's every day, 3 times/day, plus full meals each time?? This 'doc' is very biased. Btw, those two black kids were right on point - as long as you exercise regularly and correctly, you can eat all you want, and the way these black kids look is a perfect example. --KpoT (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the rebuttal to Mr. Spurlock does not seem fair. Seems to lean toward McDonalds bias. 216.146.161.134 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising and Children/School Food Politics

This article doesn't talk about the part(s) of the film that deal with the effects of advertising materials that target children in their scope, or about the politics involved in where schools get the food they serve in their cafeterias (i.e. food lobbyists, commercial sponsporships, the FDA).

Sicknessandsleep (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheeseburger and hamburgers

While the rules said he had to have every food item at least ONCE, it doesn't say a number for ham and cheeseburgers.cheeseburgers have more calories than hamburgers and more cholesterol.So I think this movie is both too biased and broad at the same time.The movie is inert.User:Shock64


Simple Math

" In thirty days, he "Supersized" his meals nine times along the way (five of which were in Texas, three in New York City.) " Someone please change this. I'm not an expert on where he supersized his meals so I would prefer if someone else changed this information. Thanks. --FailureAtDeath (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe they don't know where he ss'd the 9th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.69.49 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Locked article

This article seems to be one that has the potential to be heavily moderated and censored by any people working for McDonald's that want to tone down the detail on the negative effects of their food so shouldn't this article be reviewed to ensure it is completely unbiased then locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.0.190 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article is just as likely to be biased against McDonalds by those who have an axe to grind about corporations. McDonalds has been pretty scrupulous about asking employees to keep a "hands off" approach to things like this.MarcMontoni (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Budget?

Article currently states the film budget was "$2,000,000" which does make sense even if that figure is inflated with post-release advertising. Other sources around the internet seem to indicate a $65,000 production budget. A B C and IMDB "estimates" $300k D. I will be changing the budget to $65K in a moment, please discuss here if that causes disagreement. aerotheque (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

This article - the first part of it, in particular, is written more like a movie review or fan comment than an encyclopedic article. Thorswitch (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this truly unbiased?

"Various similar experiments were made in response to Super Size Me, in an effort to provide alternative scenarios or refute the impressions made by the film. These experiments, however, were mainly balanced diets and healthy eating programs, capable of demonstrating that it is possible to eat from the McDonald's menu without upsetting one's health. At the same time, Super Size Me and similar experiments fall short of illustrating the healthiness of a typical McDonald's consumer's choice (the quintessential "burger, Coke and fries" meal). Alternate studies do not address the alterations that occurred to Spurlock's blood chemistry, but Super Size Me did not show that this was a special characteristic of fast-food diets, and not high-calorie diets in general or the lack of exercise. Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether if it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's."

Does this even make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68Kustom (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it not only doesn't make sense, but lacks appropriate sourcing and is clearly biased. It needs to either be removed or made to fit within accepted standards 24.188.213.121 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative experiments

This list of alternative experiments is getting way too long, too descriptive, and out of hand.

  • I think one option would be to trim it down to a couple of paragraphs in prose that talks about alternative experiments and gives a handful of examples without going into a ton of detail on any of them.
  • Another option would be to remove any that don't fall under certain criteria (I would suggest experiments where people ate X "bad" food for X days without exercising), as I think there are too many experiments listed that don't compare directly to this one (not exercising v exercising, which is comparing apples to oranges).
  • One more option would be to only include those experiments that came about as a direct result of this film (for instance, the last one was performed because there was criticism about handing pizza out at a gym, which clearly isn't a result of this film and, rather, one individual's personal experiment).

I'm suggesting these changes for two reasons. The first is that the list will be never ending. There will always be people doing these little experiments just for fun, even if the haven't seen the movie. It's too difficult to keep current. The second is that the "criteria" is getting stretched a bit too much. Someone who works out over an hour a day five days a week is obviously going to be able to handle more than someone who doesn't exercise at all, which is what Spurlock did. What's next? We include an experiment where someone ate only lettuce for thirty days, exercised every day, and lost weight? A bit extreme? Yes. But my point is...where is the cutoff for what gets included?

I just figured I'd throw that out there. If I don't see any dissenting opinions or other suggestions in a week or so, I'll probably trim it down and do some sort of combination of the three options I suggested. --132 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fathead, a response to supersize me

Tom Naughton created his own documentary in response to Supersize Me. He addresses every argument in super size me in defense of Mcdonalds and other fast food corporations with the help of a number of nutritionists, medical doctors, and scientists. Link to the site is here [1]. Should this be listed in the article at all? 76.230.124.121 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I've added a sentence with a link to the Houston Chronicle article on the movie. Also, I fixed an obvious math error in the article. There used to be a WP article on Fat Head, but it was deleted; perhaps we should try to get it restored.TVC 15 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fat Head is an article 50.182.180.55 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Changes to produce a better article versus a movie review

There's a bit of a movie review about the article rather than an encyclopedia article. I noticed that people have had very good points about changes, and would like to incorporate some of those without changing the truths about the film. I've seen the movie several times, and would like to see some points explained in more detail, while eliminating some very minor points.Pat44 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Original intentions"

In the first part of the "Alternative experiments section" it says: "Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's." But in the "Criticism and statistical notes section" it says that "no one was found who ate at McDonald's three times a day" (as Spurlock did). If the latter statement is correct then Spurlock failed in his original intention, and it's hard to see the point of stating it (uncritically) in the article. Kronocide (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Salads Statement seems Factually Incorrect

In the section on "Bowling for Morgan" it says: "However, Caswell's film depicted him eating many Premium Salads from McDonald's that were not available during the making of Super Size Me." However, if you look at the Wikipedia page on McDonald's products it clearly shows McDonald's has had salads since 1985. I'm going to remove this misleading statement since a salad is a salad. JettaMann (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and reintroduced the statement. A salad is not a salad when they aren't the same kinds of salad. A Premium Salad at McDonald's, which is meant to be a full meal, is not the same as a small salad, which was what they had previously. Further, what few small salads they did have certainly weren't pushed by the company or even available everywhere.
Finally, there is nothing factually inaccurate OR misleading about the statement. The fact is that those Premium Salads, which were heavily eaten in Caswell's film, and now take up a large portion of the current menu, were not introduced until after Spurlock's experiment, which is exactly what that statement is saying. Considering he had to eat everything on the menu at least once, something like the lack of those salads makes a big impact. --132 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe some basic fact checking is in order for the claim that McDonald's introduced the premium salads only in response to Spurlock's film. I can attest myself that is a false claim, because when I worked at a site in the northern Virginia area in 1996, I bought their premium salads just about every day for several weeks. If you want to dismiss history out of hand, maybe you should confirm the introduction dates of those premium salads directly with the company.MarcMontoni (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I never said the film caused McDonald's to introduce the salads, nor did I ever imply it. Unlike yourself, I'm not using any original research or personal experiences to build my case. My timeline may have been off, but I did not insinuate the film was a direct cause for the salads, despite your assumptions. If you want to dismiss my comments out of hand, maybe you should read more carefully to confirm what I actually said. By the way, the premium salads were introduced in March 2003, not 1996. --132 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think i see the disconnect. You interchange "Premium Salad" with "premium salad". One way of saying it is a brand name (with caps); the other is a generic description (lowercase). How many people know that McDonald's calls its entree salads "Premium Salads"? A reasonable person would say a "premium salad" was simply a generic term to describe a salad with extra stuff on it.
In any case, like I said, more research would be good. McDonald's has indeed offered meal-sized salads for a long time -- long before 2003, and long before 1996. Here's a YouTube with a McDonald's commercial from 1990, showing what is, in all but name, a "premium salad": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KILT2HQFP4 . Here is another that advertises a chicken breast salad from 1986: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edSaML-8_g . We can agree that, McDonald's earlier offerings weren't *named* "Premium Salads". But in fact they are extremely similar to what the company offers now. A few ounces of lettuce, grilled chicken, tomatoes, onions, a radish slice, and some croutons, and a packet of dressing. How is it different than what is offered now? One ounce? Two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMontoni (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(new name, same user) I made no disconnect. In fact, that disconnect was made by yourself. You labeled a salad that was never referred to as a "premium salad" as such (even in your own sources here, neither salad was referred to as a "premium salad"). It does not matter what was or was not on them. Unless McDonald's specifically referred to them as such, it really doesn't matter whether or not you think they were "premium" or not. This is original research, plain and simple. -ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Slow down, Ace. It wouldn't hurt to assume good faith. Read your words again and try to consider how others might be hearing you say something different than you think you are. You made several claims above that are unsourced. For instance: "A Premium Salad at McDonald's, which is meant to be a full meal, is not the same as a small salad, which was what they had previously." So what *did* they have previously? What weight were they, what are the weights now, and where are the references for both? I gave you a couple of links that showed salads from years ago that look an awful lot like what McDonald's has now.
I'm not really sure why you're even challenging a personal experience -- this is the talk page, not the article. One could say your claim about "small salads" being the only offering before Super Size Me came out could be taken as personal experience or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMontoni (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Weight in kilograms?

I find it very unlikely that his weight was exactly 84.1413 kg at the beginning of the diet. I'm changing it to 84.1 kg, hope no one disagrees. I see this type of 'rounding error' all the time in subtitling in Sweden, "he was about 6 foot tall" gets translated as "he was about 182.9 centimeters tall". Different circumstances, but same problem. JohanK (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased Or Assumptive Language?

Under the "Alternative experiments" subhead are two questionable sentences, but I don't feel comfortable changing them because I'm not entirely sure it IS biased. They are 1) "At the same time, Super Size Me and similar experiments fall short of illustrating the healthiness of a typical McDonald's consumer's choice..." and 2) "Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether if it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's." The first sentence insinuates that most people make healthy decisions - that's a little, I dunno, sneaky - and the second sentence claims to know what Spurlock's intention was, without any citation proving it, even though it's likely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianPBNJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, even though I agree with the statements. However, I'm an IP and they'll remove my edits quick, thinking that I'm vandalising the page by removing the unsourced information. Neither statement (especially the first) is NPOV. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't care who's removing information if the information is unsourced, though if you wanted to err on the side of caution you could tag the information as needing a citation, then wait a few weeks before removing it. Alternately, if you explain what you're doing in your edit summary I can't imagine anyone assuming vandalism. In any event, I've tagged that section for containing original research...after a reasonable time period I'll likely end up pruning the information myself, but for now I don't see any harm in giving editors time to improve the sourcing for the information. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully Disagreed

I respectfully disagree with everything written in this article. I think McDonalds isn't as bad as this dude says it is. Ronald is cool and he helps people with money who need it. I eat McDonalds and I am really skinny so hes a liar its not really bad for you like he sed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.185.255 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. It CAN be bad if you eat it all the time due to it's high fat and cholesterol content but if you eat it once a week it's not that bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you actaully watched the movie he ate it at least 3 times a day for 30 days gained 25 pounds and all other sorts of stuff happened to him because of the diet. Most people dont eat it that often, but for some people it is not that far off. If they are eating it that often it isnt a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you shove massive amounts of food down your throat while sitting on your ass, ANY FOOD is going to make you a fat sick pig. Spurlock is a charlatan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Claim of "COI" edit

Seems like edits trying to make articles about controversial corporations more NPOV sometimes result in invocations of the "conflict of Interest" bogeyman. It pays to occasionally remember this part of the COI policy: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." In this article's case, it's a biased movie about a corporation. To present the movie as a scientific experiment not subject to debate would be a disservice. MarcMontoni (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have admitted that you were an employee of McDonald's and have edited this article and talk page indicating a clear bias toward the company. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. The fact that you're acting like experiments only tangentially related, but put McDonald's in a more positive light, are legitimate, only helps establish the conflict. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You misread me. I have *never* worked for McDonald's, either as an employee or as a contractor. I was a network technician, a "contractor", and the site I worked at was a nonprofit agency a couple of blocks away from the McDonald's I referred to. The McD's was the closest place to eat. Had I meant I worked *at* the McDonalds itself, I would have said "... when I worked at a McDonald's in the northern Virginia area ...". Contractors like myself refer to job locations as "sites".
I have no connection with the company other than the fact that I occasionally purchase their products.
And once again, Spurlock's work was not an "experiment". An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried." http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+experiment This movie is not an experiment in any sense, unless the experiment was to test whether eating too much food makes you fat and lethargic. Well, Duh. MarcMontoni (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that the COI policy refers to COI in the *present* tense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Financial . Even if I had been an employee of McDonald's 15 years ago in 1996, that does not indicate a COI *now*. But like I said -- I have *never* worked for McDonald's, either as an employee or as a contractor. MarcMontoni (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Spurlock's film follows a hi 30-day period from February 1 to March 2, 2003 during which he eats only McDonald's food."

Looks like someone snuck a little "hi" in there, unless there's some other meaning to it. I can't change it because the page is protected, but if someone else could that'd be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.88.130 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Willis

Someone please mention Wesley Willis in this article, after all the infamous song "Rock and Roll McDonalds is in it". I would myself, but I don't want it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

criticism

the Criticism section is all about movies made in response, shouldn't it contain reviews from critics? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's a random sentence thrown in that says "11111 he gets really fat" right after the paragraph about 9.26 Big Macs, but it doesn't show up in the "edit" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.71.171 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Science

the new scientist reported about a study undertaken in sweden, the text can be read there: http://skylertanner.com/2010/04/30/supersize-me-revisted-under-lab-conditions/ wasn't the study recognized in the US?

the study was also subject in a scientific journal: (of the British Society of Gastroenterology) title: Fast-food-based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects ;) http://gut.bmj.com/content/57/5/649.full Saviansn (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (from old europe ;)

Sourcewatch as a reliable source?!?

Sourcewatch is user-edited, making it unacceptable as a reliable source (much like how a Wikipedia article cannot cite another Wikipedia article). Furthermore, it's a liberal organization with a mission statement that says Sourcwatch tries to "work to influence public opinion and public policy." Hardly sounds like a credible, non-biases source. It should be removed as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.35.20 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Size Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Super Size Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Defamation

This is a propaganda film. It is trying to defame McDonald's, and take away their pureness. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Er, what pureness did McDonald's ever have to get taken away, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Where should this reporting be incorporated?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-alarm-1527114255

Rsterbal (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

source for statement

There is a statement at the end of the Findings section which explains how Mcdonalds denied their health marketing had anything to do with the movie. There is no source for this statement and I was wondering if someone could find and add one? Or does this not require a source? --RadicalSigh (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Why no real scientific sources? Why no evidence revealed since movie's release?

Why are there no links or discussion from real scientific sources proving Spurlocks claims of massive weight gain were a fraud? Why is there no section on his alcohol abuse causing the liver damage which was falsely blamed upon McDonald's milk shakes? Given that such sources are very easy to locate e.g., sample links below from Google, it would seem that the article is locked only to protect Spurlock by continuing to promote his lies and fraud, and hence violates WP:NPOV.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2005/08/25/spurlock-food-scare-a-super-size-scam https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2018/05/is-super-size-me-a-big-fat-lie/ https://www.thefix.com/morgan-spurlock-sober https://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-documentaries-that-were-shockingly-full-crap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've always wondered...

Is the "Super Size" in the title supposed to be read as a verb, or as an adjective? 2001:8003:548A:9400:7998:D2E0:4D25:A844 (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Size_Me/Archive_1&oldid=1136007122"