Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

YUCK!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robyn Rosenthal - 25 Jan 2004 02:32 GMT
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm

January 22, 2004 -- LAST February, Morgan Spurlock decided to become a
gastronomical guinea pig.
His mission: To eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's and document
the impact on his health.

Scores of cheeseburgers, hundreds of fries and dozens of chocolate shakes
later, the formerly strapping 6-foot-2 New Yorker - who started out at a
healthy 185 pounds - had packed on 25 pounds.

But his supersized shape was the least of his problems.

Within a few days of beginning his drive-through diet, Spurlock, 33, was
vomiting out the window of his car, and doctors who examined him were
shocked at how rapidly Spurlock's entire body deteriorated.

"It was really crazy - my body basically fell apart over the course of 30
days," Spurlock told The Post.

His liver became toxic, his cholesterol shot up from a low 165 to 230, his
libido flagged and he suffered headaches and depression.

Spurlock charted his journey from fit to flab in a tongue-in-cheek
documentary, which he has taken to the Sundance Film Festival with the hopes
of getting a distribution deal.

"Super Size Me" explores the obesity epidemic that plagues America today - a
sort of "Bowling for Columbine" for fast food.

As well as documenting his own burger-fueled bulk-up, Spurlock travels to 20
cities across America, interviewing people on the street, health experts and
a lobbyist for the fast-food industry.

Despite making dozens of phone calls, Spurlock fails to get anyone from
McDonald's to agree to an on-camera interview.

A spokeswoman for McDonald's told The Post yesterday that no representatives
from the corporation had seen "Super Size Me."

"Consumers can achieve balance in their daily dining decisions by choosing
from our array of quality offerings and range of portion sizes to meet their
taste and nutrition goals," McDonald's said in a statement.

Over the course of the film, Spurlock is regularly examined by a
gastroenterologist, a cardiologist and SoHo-based general practitioner Dr.
Daryl Isaacs.

"He was an extremely healthy person who got very sick eating this McDonald's
diet," Dr. Isaacs told The Post.

"None of us imagined he could deteriorate this badly - he looked terrible.
The liver test was the most shocking thing - it became very, very abnormal."

Spurlock has since returned to normal health. "The treatment was to just
stop doing what he was doing," Dr. Isaacs says.

Spurlock, who says he ate at McDonald's only sporadically before his total
immersion in the Mickey D's menu, says he even began craving fat and sugar
fixes between meals.

"I got desperately ill," he says. "My face was splotchy and I had this huge
gut, which I've never had in my life.

"My knees started to hurt from the extra weight coming on so quickly. It was
amazing - and really frightening."

Spurlock's girlfriend, Alex Jamieson, was horrified - she's a vegan chef.

"She was completely disgusted by me, not happy at all," he says. "But she
realized what my goals were in trying to educate people."

[Translation: He didn't get laid for the whole month. Explains the
depression.  -  Bo]

Spurlock, a film producer who grew up in West Virginia and studied ballet
for eight years, was spurred to make his first feature film while watching
TV on Thanksgiving Day, 2002.

"I was feeling like a typical American on Thanksgiving - very bloated and
happy on the couch - and at some point on the news they were talking about
two women who were suing McDonald's.

"People from the food industry were saying, 'You can't link kids being fat
to our food - our food is nutritious.'

"I said, 'How nutritious is it really? Let's find out."

Not surprisingly, Spurlock has steered clear of the Golden Arches since
filming wrapped.

"I have not had McDonald's for seven months, but yesterday, during an
interview, I had a bite of a Big Mac," he says.

"I chewed it up, swallowed it and I said, 'You know what, I'm pretty much
done after that bite.' "
Roger Zoul - 25 Jan 2004 10:56 GMT
Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
per day.

The guy just pigged out.  Not the fault of MacDonald food, if you ask me.
This a.shole just wanted to get fat quick.  One can eat at MacDonalds 3X
everyday and lose weight, if desired.

:: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
::
:: January 22, 2004 -- LAST February, Morgan Spurlock decided to become
:: a gastronomical guinea pig.
:: His mission: To eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's and
:: document the impact on his health.
Cubit - 25 Jan 2004 12:25 GMT
So Roger,

How many shares of McDonalds do you own?
Isn't it time to sell?

McDonalds pegs my BG meter.

This movie is likely to have been a sincere effort.

> Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
> per day.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> :: His mission: To eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's and
> :: document the impact on his health.
Roger Zoul - 25 Jan 2004 14:36 GMT
:: So Roger,
::
:: How many shares of McDonalds do you own?

None.

:: Isn't it time to sell?

I doubt it. I don't pay attention to morons like this guy.

:: McDonalds pegs my BG meter.

You eat the wrong things. Remember the "burger w/o bun" LC mantra?  Salads,
eggs, meat, etc.  How about just portion control.

You do realize that he could have done the same thing eating a home, or any
place else.

:: This movie is likely to have been a sincere effort.

A sincere effort to gain weight -- yeah.  The guy went out of his way to try
to gain a pound a day.  If you believe this was the result of a sincere
effort, you need to think a little deeper.

::: Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917
::: kcals extra per day.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
::::: His mission: To eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's
::::: and document the impact on his health.
Brenda - 25 Jan 2004 16:07 GMT
<< "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:101786sht4l23b0@corp.supernews.com...
> Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
> per day.
>
> The guy just pigged out.  Not the fault of MacDonald food, if you ask me.
> This a.shole just wanted to get fat quick.  One can eat at MacDonalds 3X
> everyday and lose weight, if desired.
eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's and>><BR><BR>
I agree, Roger, he could have easily had a diet soda or unsweetened iced tea
with his meals instead of a shake or regular soda. McDonald's has really good
salads now, did he ever try one of those? And what about the fruit and yogurt
parfait? Not a bad choice, but he didn't eat that either.  I could eat at
McDonald's every day for 30 days and keep my calories under 1400 per day and
still lose. Now, as for being healthy........I'm not so sure about that. But I
wouldn't have gained weight. I'd have more respect for this documentary had he
NOT gotten fat and just focused on the health angle.

Brenda
135/106
Myway - 25 Jan 2004 12:40 GMT
> Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
> per day.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> :: His mission: To eat three meals a day for 30 days at McDonald's and
> :: document the impact on his health.

Funny how the bad rumors spread quickly. Guess some have nothing better
to do. You can apply that reasoning with ANY "diet" you want. If someone
is so ignorant to pig-out, yes you will gain weight...durrrrr

Myway

Myway
DigitalVinyl - 25 Jan 2004 15:06 GMT
While this guy may have had motive to acheive a specific goal, he may
have done it honestly. To simply blame the person for overeating
(which can have phsychological or physiological causes) is an act of
ignorance and arrogance. There is a reason why people, in general,
overeat and/or gain weight and that reason needs to be identified and
fixed. Why would it be so hard to believe that a fast food chains,
whose profits depend solely on selling greater and greater volumes of
food year after year, might construct a menu that encouraged a larger
appetite and eating larger portions?

I guess neither of you actually prescribe to Atkin's theories.

Atkins as well as Heller & Heller (Carb Addicts) both point to the
arrogant attitude practiced by the medical community-one you kinda see
creeping into both of your posts.

If you are overweight you are a pig, you eat like a pig, therefore you
look like a pig. Stop acting like a lazy pig and things will get
better. The emphasis is that the person is wholly and willfully at
fault--no questions asked. If I went to the doctor for a "legitimate"
illness he doesn't blame me and ignore the illness, he figures out
what's wrong and treats it. If you got to a doctor for obesity, he
says stop being a lazy pig.

Atkins and the Hellers both point out that the medical community
largely ignores that there may be a cause of obesity beyond that 33%
of Americans are simply gluttonous porkers. Even now the medical
community defends low-fat despite that the low fat craze correlates an
increase in obesity for the first time in decades. Their
explanation--people are at fault. They eat low-fat foods and are
pigs--thinking they can eat as much as they want.

It hasn't occured to these "scientific professionals" that low-fat
foods may be INDUCING hunger, may be CREATING cravings. That the
"medical" reccommendation of cutting fat actually forces people to
consume more, not less calories. Atkins & Hellers both advocate that
the carbs in the diet increases appetite. Protein or fat curbs
appetite. It isn't the person, it is the food (or composition thereof)
that determines when appetite is satiated(sp?). And the medical
professional made that problem worse with their recommnedations.

Denouncing people as gluttonous pigs simply allows everyone to ignore
how bad our food chain has become.

>> Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
>> per day.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>to do. You can apply that reasoning with ANY "diet" you want. If someone
>is so ignorant to pig-out, yes you will gain weight...durrrrr

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
JC Der Koenig - 25 Jan 2004 16:29 GMT
Stop being a lazy pig.

And stop blaming others for you becoming a lazy pig.

Signature

JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--

> While this guy may have had motive to acheive a specific goal, he may
> have done it honestly. To simply blame the person for overeating
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> >
> DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
Cubit - 26 Jan 2004 14:33 GMT
JC der koenig is in the wrong group.

If I had a killfile, he would be at the top of the list.

DigitalVinyl's post is insightful.
DigitalVinyl - 26 Jan 2004 15:44 GMT
>JC der koenig is in the wrong group.
>
>If I had a killfile, he would be at the top of the list.
He made mine several days ago. I reviewed his contributions to threads
I read and they were little and most obnoxious one-liners of no value,
so *PLONK* he went away.

I've always done a lot of newsgroups reading back as far as 1995. SO I
bought Forte's Agent way back when. www.forteinc.com 
There is probably a free newsreader with filtering out there. It is
worth it. Makes newsgroups much more pleasant.

>DigitalVinyl's post is insightful.
Just reiterating what Atkins said many years ago.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
FOB - 26 Jan 2004 21:53 GMT
Click on Message, Block sender.

In news:6z9Rb.6103$LG2.2027@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com,
Cubit <no@no.not> stated
| JC der koenig is in the wrong group.
|
| If I had a killfile, he would be at the top of the list.
|
| DigitalVinyl's post is insightful.
JC Der Koenig - 27 Jan 2004 03:14 GMT
Have you always been a whiney fat f.ck?

Signature

JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--

> JC der koenig is in the wrong group.
>
> If I had a killfile, he would be at the top of the list.
>
> DigitalVinyl's post is insightful.
norsk - 25 Jan 2004 18:14 GMT
> Let's see.....(25 lbs) * (3500 kcals/pound) / (31 days) = 2917 kcals extra
> per day.
>
> The guy just pigged out.  Not the fault of MacDonald food, if you ask me.
> This a.shole just wanted to get fat quick.  One can eat at MacDonalds 3X
> everyday and lose weight, if desired.

I  agree, as this guy obviously had a plan going into this, as opposed to
the normal person who bought into the whole food pyramid thing....or has
just been making excuses as to why they eat that way. He intended to eat the
worst foods he could.

Personally, I already knew that stuff was unhealthy, so this documentary
holds little meaning for me. It would have been no different if he had
decided to eat nothing but burgers, potato chips, and a Coke at home,
followed by a bowl of ice cream. Everyone knows its bad, so why do an
experiment to prove it? Bowling for Columbine this is not.

Norsk
Sun & Mun_ - 25 Jan 2004 22:35 GMT
>The guy just pigged out.  Not the fault of MacDonald food, if you ask me.
>This a.shole just wanted to get fat quick.  One can eat at MacDonalds 3X
>everyday and lose weight, if desired.

Sure can.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
jcd - 25 Jan 2004 15:47 GMT
Just read the guy who did this won Best Director at Sundance for the film
about his experience.
JD

> http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
> "I chewed it up, swallowed it and I said, 'You know what, I'm pretty much
> done after that bite.' "
Robyn Rosenthal - 25 Jan 2004 18:14 GMT
All I know is that if *I* tried to eat nothing but fast food for a month, I'd
lose a lot of weight:)

I just posted the link because I thought it was funny:)Robyn
Roger Zoul - 25 Jan 2004 18:20 GMT
:: All I know is that if *I* tried to eat nothing but fast food for a
:: month, I'd lose a lot of weight:)
::
:: I just posted the link because I thought it was funny:)Robyn

No problems with posting links -- provides interesting topics and gives us a
chance to spot the real morons :)
tcmedara - 25 Jan 2004 22:59 GMT
> http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
>
> (snip article)

People puleeez!

Go back and reread the article and understand what the guy was trying to do.

1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
2) While he could have eaten their healthy fare, it would not have allowed
him to make his point
3) This wasn't meant to be scientific, but to highlight and call attention
to the fast food choices people make in today's society
4) That the man's health deteriorate so quickly is surprising to all
involved, and really helps make his point -- hence the story.

Let me offer some help for the artistically challenged.  Eating fast food
crap 3 times a day  for a month was obviously the subject of the movie.  It
wasn't meant to be any sort of investigative or scientific approach to
studying a fast food diet.  In the social context of the US (and western
Europe to some degree), fast food has become an icon for making the choice
of convenience over quality.  That such convenience also has public health
consequences is a growing field of discussion.  Documenting this silly stunt
is obviously an artistic/political statement about our food choices brought
to us in living color with a dramatic example of excess.

Hey, McDonald's french fries are one of my favorite things in the world, but
I don't make them a regular part of my diet.  Unfortunately, lots of kids
and families get a large portion of their diet from fast food outlets and
packaged convenience foods.  No surprise to most of us in the group, but not
everyone understands the implications of eating that way.  Just don't get
confused about the guys motives.  He knew exactly what he was doing.  I'm
sure he'd be thrilled to know its sparked discussion and rhetoric as seen in
this thread.

Personally I think he's pretty silly for going that far for the sake of a
documentary that no one will see, but there's just no figuring when it comes
to "art."

Tom (artistically challenged too, but I still get the point)
Robyn Rosenthal - 25 Jan 2004 23:04 GMT
>From: "tcmedara" tcmedara@REMOVEhotmail.com

>> http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
>Tom (artistically challenged too, but I still get the point)

I am sorry, does it somehow offend you that I find the idea of eating fast food
three times a day gross even if it is done in the name of art?

Robyn
tcmedara - 26 Jan 2004 01:53 GMT
>> From: "tcmedara" tcmedara@REMOVEhotmail.com
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> Go back and reread the article and understand what the guy was
>> trying to do.

(snip)

> I am sorry, does it somehow offend you that I find the idea of eating
> fast food three times a day gross even if it is done in the name of
> art?
>
> Robyn

No, not at all.  I agree with you.  Sorry,  I should have been more clear.
:)  I was referring to the few posts that followed your OP commenting on
things like how he could have varied his menu choices, implied he was
blaming McDonalds for his health problems, or was trying to "prove"
something.  I bet the guy who did it finds the thought of eating fast food
three times a day pretty gross now too!

Tom
Roger Zoul - 25 Jan 2004 23:37 GMT
:: Robyn Rosenthal <cotongrmr@aol.com> wrote:
::: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
::
:: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day

..to get fat...

:: 2) While he could have eaten their healthy fare, it would not have
:: allowed him to make his point

what point? that pigging out will get you fat?

:: 3) This wasn't meant to be scientific, but to highlight and call
:: attention to the fast food choices people make in today's society

Most people don't eat 3x meals at MaCdonalds.....this makes no statement
about fast food choices....one can make bad choices in many ways.  The idiot
was just picking on an easy target to get noticed.  heh -- and you call it
art.  What a crapload.

:: 4) That the man's health deteriorate so quickly is surprising to all
:: involved, and really helps make his point -- hence the story.

Did you read about how just 20 pounds made him disgusting to his gf?  Sounds
like a statement about fat people to me.

:: Let me offer some help for the artistically challenged.  Eating fast
:: food crap 3 times a day  for a month was obviously the subject of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: That such convenience also has public health consequences is a
:: growing field of discussion.

Please...this is nothing new...it's old hat.

Documenting this silly stunt is
:: obviously an artistic/political statement about our food choices
:: brought to us in living color with a dramatic example of excess.

We have plenty of real life examples of excess. Real people in much worse
situations.

:: Hey, McDonald's french fries are one of my favorite things in the
:: world, but I don't make them a regular part of my diet.
:: Unfortunately, lots of kids and families get a large portion of
:: their diet from fast food outlets and packaged convenience foods.
:: No surprise to most of us in the group, but not everyone understands
:: the implications of eating that way.

Hey -- he didn't merely eat -- he ate to get fat.

Just don't get confused about
:: the guys motives.  He knew exactly what he was doing.  I'm sure he'd
:: be thrilled to know its sparked discussion and rhetoric as seen in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: of a documentary that no one will see, but there's just no figuring
:: when it comes to "art."

Yeah, some people will do anything to get attention.  Sad, really.

:: Tom (artistically challenged too, but I still get the point)
lbudney@pobox.com - 26 Jan 2004 00:45 GMT
> Most people don't eat 3x meals at MaCdonalds.....this makes no
> statement about fast food choices....one can make bad choices in
> many ways.  The idiot was just picking on an easy target to get
> noticed.  heh -- and you call it art.  What a crapload.

I've done it. It's amazingly convenient when you: (1) work from home,
(2) are lazy, (3) are cheap and (4) like McDonald's.

I fail to see a good reason for reacting violently to the guy's
test, however artificial.

Regards,
Len.
Marsha - 26 Jan 2004 01:01 GMT
> I fail to see a good reason for reacting violently to the guy's
> test, however artificial.

Violent???

Marsha/Ohio
lbudney@pobox.com - 26 Jan 2004 01:22 GMT
>> I fail to see a good reason for reacting violently to the guy's
>> test, however artificial.
>
> Violent???

Yah, some people seem to be throwing a real hissy. It's all out of
proportion to reality. If he wants, let him live on nothing but
kumquats for thirty days. Who cares?

--Len.
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 03:07 GMT
:: Marsha <mas@sev.org> writes:
::: lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: proportion to reality. If he wants, let him live on nothing but
:: kumquats for thirty days. Who cares?

Right...he'll still be a moron.
lbudney@pobox.com - 26 Jan 2004 03:32 GMT
>:: Yah, some people seem to be throwing a real hissy. It's all out of
>:: proportion to reality. If he wants, let him live on nothing but
>:: kumquats for thirty days. Who cares?
>
> Right...he'll still be a moron.

IOW, YOU care. Why?

--Len.
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 09:19 GMT
:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes:
::: lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
::
:: IOW, YOU care. Why?

Care that he's a moron? No.  It's just so.
lbudney@pobox.com - 26 Jan 2004 12:45 GMT
>:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes:
>::: lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Care that he's a moron? No.  It's just so.

Okay, whatever. You choose to get worked up about what this guy is
doing, which is fine with me--since I neither care about him NOR
you--but it *IS* rather boring. Enjoy your thread.

--Len.
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 14:43 GMT
:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes:
::: lbudney@pobox.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:: doing, which is fine with me--since I neither care about him NOR
:: you--but it *IS* rather boring. Enjoy your thread.

Worked up?  Perhaps you need to smell the roses more.
Cubit - 26 Jan 2004 14:45 GMT
> :: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
> ..to get fat...

Lie.

"Morgan Spurlock documents his month of eating nothing but McDonald's food.
He has to try everything on the menu at least once, and he must super-size
his order if asked."

Many in our society have jobs or liestyles that make fast food a practical
necessity.  Back when I was a phone repairman lunch had to be fast and on
the road....  Now I would break a telephone pole....

The McRestaurants of the world have complete control of their menu and the
urging comments made by thier staff to the customers.  The movie simply asks
and shows what doing what they tell you causes.

It is easy to add sugar or corn syrup to a meat patty.

Cubit 308/283/165
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 15:00 GMT
::::: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
::: ..to get fat...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: McDonald's food. He has to try everything on the menu at least once,
:: and he must super-size his order if asked."

What does this prove?  It is not a menu.  Eating everything someone else
suggests you eat is simply stuipd.

:: Many in our society have jobs or liestyles that make fast food a
:: practical necessity.  Back when I was a phone repairman lunch had to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
::
:: It is easy to add sugar or corn syrup to a meat patty.

Are  you suggesting that McD adds sugar or corn syrup to a meat patty?
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 26 Jan 2004 15:18 GMT
> > :: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
> > ..to get fat...
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> It is easy to add sugar or corn syrup to a meat patty.

i am the last person to defend mcdonald's - i think their food is crap
and i don't eat there unless it's absolutely the last resort - but they
*don't* add sugar or corn syrup to their beef.
DigitalVinyl - 26 Jan 2004 15:35 GMT
>> > :: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
>> > ..to get fat...
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>and i don't eat there unless it's absolutely the last resort - but they
>*don't* add sugar or corn syrup to their beef.  

You think so, well we had an article locally that referred to a
MCDonalds LC suggestion. Eat the lettuce, patties & cheese from a big
mac-  three things.. lettuce patties and 2 cheese slices = 7 carbs.
considering the pathetic amount of shredded lettuce how does 2 slices
of cheese = 7 grams?  Sugars HAVE been added somewhere! Even the worst
American sliced cheese I found had 2g per slice, lettuce will be
negliable 0.1, so there are 3g of carbs unaccounted for and only the
beef is left.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 26 Jan 2004 15:36 GMT
> >> > :: 1) He intentionally at at McDonalds 3 times per day
> >> > ..to get fat...
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> negliable 0.1, so there are 3g of carbs unaccounted for and only the
> beef is left.

you can go to their website and look up the ingredients for yourself.

and if you think they're lying, you're welcome to bring a lawsuit
against them.
Xray586 - 26 Jan 2004 00:23 GMT
<< 3) This wasn't meant to be scientific, but to highlight and call attention
to the fast food choices people make in today's society >><BR><BR>

Yeah, that seems to be his point.  But who doesn't know that by now?

I haven't seen this documentary, but it sure is getting alot of press!  Maybe
the film is funny, or has some unusual perspective or production value.  It may
even be really great.

Personally though, it bugs me a little.  I know lots of people  making
documentaries about difficult, beautiful, important, worthwhile topics.  They
spend years pouring everything into some heartfelt film, made on a shoestring,
researching something 'til they are experts, caring about something and hoping
others will care too.  Most of those films get little attention, they are shown
to a tiny audience and filed away.

Ah well, gimmicky films have their place.  This one sounds easy to make though:
an idea drawn from the headlines and popular book list, one month shooting, not
very expensive, probably not too difficult to edit, makes a big splash.  

But now he has to loose the weight.
tcmedara - 26 Jan 2004 01:59 GMT
> << 3) This wasn't meant to be scientific, but to highlight and call
> attention to the fast food choices people make in today's society
> >><BR><BR>
>
> Yeah, that seems to be his point.  But who doesn't know that by now?

(snip)

Probably very few by now.  Obesity seems to be the lastest societal
handwringer in the press and fast food is the easy culprit.  I don't think
the guy was making a very provocative statement at all.  Though you gotta
admit his approach is pretty orginal.  I would be kinda curious to see the
film just to see what happens when someone adds a pound a day to their body.
It can't be pretty.

Tom
Xray586 - 26 Jan 2004 02:19 GMT
Tom says: << I would be kinda curious to see the
film just to see what happens when someone adds a pound a day to their body.
>><BR><BR>

You'll probably be able to see it.  If it won the Sundance prize, it should air
on cable tv.  Sundance and maybe HBO will pick it up.

I heard him talking on NPR.  He got sick, heaving out car windows, even.  Can't
wait!!!
Fatso - 26 Jan 2004 15:06 GMT
Similar story,

http://www.thespark.com/science/fat/day0.html

> http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
> "I chewed it up, swallowed it and I said, 'You know what, I'm pretty much
> done after that bite.' "
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 15:29 GMT
won't be long before we'll have a new type of tv reality show: getting fat
for $$

:: Similar story,
::
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
::: "I chewed it up, swallowed it and I said, 'You know what, I'm
::: pretty much done after that bite.' "
Andrea Bostrom - 26 Jan 2004 17:36 GMT
>From: "Roger Zoul" rogerzoul2@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/26/04 10:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <101acirp128lpd6@corp.supernews.com>
>
>won't be long before we'll have a new type of tv reality show: getting fat
>for $$

   
       Unfortunately you're probably right.  I'm sure there are many who'd
volunteer to pack on the pounds for bucks -- and many who'd tune in to watch
the "progress".

Andrea
Xray586 - 26 Jan 2004 17:50 GMT
<< >won't be long before we'll have a new type of tv reality show: getting fat
>for $$ >><BR><BR>

Will it be as much fun to have a followup reality show about losing that
weight?
Roger Zoul - 26 Jan 2004 17:54 GMT
:: << >won't be long before we'll have a new type of tv reality show:
:: getting fat
::: for $$ >><BR><BR>
::
:: Will it be as much fun to have a followup reality show about losing
:: that weight?

That's the part I'd enjoy!
Marsha - 27 Jan 2004 00:38 GMT
> won't be long before we'll have a new type of tv reality show: getting fat
> for $$

Wish that offer would have been made when I quit smoking
years ago.  I'd be rich : )

Marsha/Ohio
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.