OT - Saw "Super Size Me" today

[Ze-man]

Well ok,

I will not go into it here.

 

ok I will..

 

for the record.

I try and eat healthy, I eat field green salads daily, make fruit smooties, not many unrefined sugars, no white breads, more seafood and chicken then meat, smaller meal portions then I used to eat, and while I am not a Atkins advocate, I do agree that watching how many carbs you eat a day is not a bad thing.

But with all that said.

 

Sometimes you have to eat what you want, good for you or not.

All in moderation, I personally go to" Steak and Shake "for my fries and burger , I hate Mikky Dees.

 

 

But if I think about what is in a Hot Dog I prolly wont eat another one.

And I love Hot Dogs.

 

If I think about the ocean and all the illeagle dumping that goes on I prolly wont eat any fish again.

But I love Seafood.

 

If I think about what pesticides are used worldwide, I might not eat as many fruits and vegatables .

But I love fruits and Veggies.

 

So my point is..yes be aware of what you eat.

But dont live in fear.

 

Yes Fast Food has ruined Americas waistline.. and resturants are guilty of giving us all way too much of a portion at one sitting.

Life and food are there to enjoy, and if you like bacon, fries,. burgers, pie, candy, caffine, booze

No problem.. go for it.

But temper that with healthy things also.. moderation is the key to it all.

Make good choices and be informed , pik your battles, and pig out when you feel the need to.

 

So is Mikky Dees the Devil? kinda

But I do see them making an effort to change..

We now have 8 salads on our local McDonalds menue.

No more supersize

Grilled items , not fried

Yogurt instead of Hashbrowns.

 

Now I still think all their food is full of PVC and presevatives.. but at least they are bowing to current eating trends in America ..I will give them that.

[the_Greatest]

[Rip]

I like Carl's Jr the Best.........

[Aman619]

I think I'll pass on this doc (urgh) and reread Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation instead.

 

Bit more food for thought with that book.

 

so go see the film - - the book inspired it, and I think the author is interviewed in it! (not sure)

[Steve_HOCP]

 

Why thank you....I try

 

Pulitzer material

 

Again, thanks.

 

 

I'm going to drink till I puke out the window of the car....and film it.

 

I wouldn't reccomend driving while doing this.

Every cop in town will be looking to fill his DWI quota with you.

 

true...but it will be the fault of the alcohol industry...for making beer.

 

 

Steve, Im available if you need help making this documentary.

 

Thank you my forum brother, I think it would take the help of many of our forum brothers as well...to bond together through those tough times.

 

 

I saw this on the net and it explains the thinking behind the movie to a T:

 

Spurlock easily could have eaten three meals a day at McDonald's while staying below the 2,500 calories his doctor said he needed to maintain his starting weight of 185 pounds. For instance, an Egg McMuffin, orange juice, and coffee for breakfast; a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad and iced tea for lunch; and a double cheeseburger, medium fries, and diet Coke for dinner total fewer than 1,800 calories. By contrast, Spurlock says he consumed some 5,000 calories a day, while deliberately avoiding physical activity. In short, his experiment proves nothing but basic physics.[/b]

 

[Aman619]

Their 'right' to eat what they want, and as much as they want, should stop at the point it conflicts with our rights to not have to subsidize their mistakes. Like the smoking lawsuits, ultimately we will force McDees to serve far more healthful foods, or be forced to pay for the medical complications they cause.

 

yes, no???

 

No. If the market demands healthy foods, they will serve healthy foods. If we are going to demand fast food pay for medical bills, then why stop there. Lets have auto companies pay for all hospital bills incurred in wrecks. Lets have swimming pool manufacturers pay settlement money to parents of kids who drowned in their pools.

 

Better idea: Let the consumer take responsiblity for the choices they make and not treat them as stupid insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

 

thats my point!! exactly. Let these people ALSO take FINANCIAL responsibilty for their own actions too!!

 

If you eat junk and get diabetes, or smoke and get cancer etc etc, then YOU must pay out of YOUR own pocket for your medical treatment! Not me. Okay? are you cool with that? SO if that person who did not care to take care of themself cant afford to pay for his own healthcare, he gets none. The rest of the community/country/government will not pick up the tab for that person's lack of willpower. If this were in effect I think people would think twice about eating [!@#%^&^] and smoking etc.

 

Auto companies are being held responsible for their decisions in regard to shoddy manufacturing. They have been made to pay for their mistakes in creating the products they sell. So should McDonalds for the foods they MANUFACTURE, especially since their food is a far cry more manufactured than grown.

 

Your swimming pool analogy is silly. If a pool was manufactured with a flaw that caused injury or death, they sure as heck would be responsible. A hole in the ground with water in it is a concept. HOW you build it opens you to lawsuit after which your construction choices may leave you liable to pay for your mistakes. A hamburger or fries are concepts, and can be manufactured many different ways from healthful, to non-damaging, to downright cancerous. Fast-food companies currently have NO INCENTIVE AT ALL to create any products arent put together solely to taste good enough to sell billions of them. SO they are filled with sugar, fats etc that serve that purpose alone.

 

You know, poisin is sold in stores everywhere with no problem. But peole dont eat it because they KNOW its poison. The real problem here IMO, is that consumers are NOT YET AWARE that fast food is slow acting poison. They figure if it was so bad McDs wouldnt be allowed to sell it!

 

Youre right, personal respionsibility is a major factor here. But it is NOT the ONLY factor at work in this problem..

[Susanville]

I saw this on the net and it explains the thinking behind the movie to a T:

 

Spurlock easily could have eaten three meals a day at McDonald's while staying below the 2,500 calories his doctor said he needed to maintain his starting weight of 185 pounds. For instance, an Egg McMuffin, orange juice, and coffee for breakfast; a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad and iced tea for lunch; and a double cheeseburger, medium fries, and diet Coke for dinner total fewer than 1,800 calories. By contrast, Spurlock says he consumed some 5,000 calories a day, while deliberately avoiding physical activity. In short, his experiment proves nothing but basic physics.[/b]

 

 

I think that the point here was that he was modeling "typical" US citizen behavior. I was thinking the same thing - he could have walked more and eaten things in a little more in moderation. But my wife said that the point is that folks typically don't go "low" when they're eating fast food and folks typically don't exercise. How many of you exercise (aerobically) on a regular basis? So did he take it to an extreme? Yes. But was it to that much of an extreme? Take a look around, look at the stats and decide for yourself. We are not a healthy people.

[Apotheosis]

thats my point!! exactly. Let these people ALSO take FINANCIAL responsibilty for their own actions too!!

 

If you eat junk and get diabetes, or smoke and get cancer etc etc, then YOU must pay out of YOUR own pocket for your medical treatment! Not me. Okay? are you cool with that? SO if that person who did not care to take care of themself cant afford to pay for his own healthcare, he gets none. The rest of the community/country/government will not pick up the tab for that person's lack of willpower. If this were in effect I think people would think twice about eating [!@#%^&^] and smoking etc.

 

I wonder... do you have kids? If not... do you want them? If you answer yes to either one of them then I say this to you....

 

Pay for it your freaking self. The idea that people need to be responsible for their own [!@#%^&^] is a good one. I agree with it completely. The problem comes in the fact that you can't make one group pay for their decisions and not another. The child thing is a big one for me since I have no intentions of ever having them yet half (literally) of my property taxes go to the local schools and I pay more in regular taxes because I don't have them. Why does it make sense for me to pay more for taxes just because I'm not putting further burdens on society via children?

 

[fantastic_four]

The child thing is a big one for me since I have no intentions of ever having them yet half (literally) of my property taxes go to the local schools and I pay more in regular taxes because I don't have them. Why does it make sense for me to pay more for taxes just because I'm not putting further burdens on society via children?

 

Why are children a burden on society? If you're living in Japan or India, maybe...but I don't see why having one or two kids in America is a burden on anybody. And even without kids, you're benefitting from keeping the schools going...without education, all the elements of society we build our lives upon begin to break down. The teenagers or managers at McDonald's wouldn't know why they need to clean the grill at the end of the day without some basic health education.

[Foolkiller]

I saw this movie when it came out a few weeks ago... fantastic documentary. A little light on analysis and facts, but definitely entertaining. Like most Michael Moore movies (which are usually a little factually off) this movie did the something similar and hit you over the head with it's message. Some parts were a little out of place, but the movie had some great moments like:

 

1) he consumed a pound of sugar a day while on the diet

 

2) his Vegan girlfriend's (who was insanely annoying in the film) reaction to the experiment

 

3) the sizing of the cups for drinks (including the one that held half a gallon of soda) which the guy who was having his stomach stapled drank FOUR of a day

 

and

 

4) the look on his face when somebody would ask him to Supersize -- "I guess I'm gonna have to..."

 

McDonald's claims this movie had no effect on them -- except

 

1) they're eliminating Super Size option at the end of 2004 (not sure of the date, but it is being eliminated)

 

and

 

2) what are they offering as part of the adult happy meal? that's right... a pedometer.

[fantastic_four]

McDonald's claims this movie had no effect on them -- except

 

They need to start offering side salads instead of fries in their combo meals. That's the entire reason I choose Wendy's over them.

[Apotheosis]

Why are children a burden on society? If you're living in Japan or India, maybe...but I don't see why having one or two kids in America is a burden on anybody. And even without kids, you're benefitting from keeping the schools going...without education, all the elements of society we build our lives upon begin to break down. The teenagers or managers at McDonald's wouldn't know why they need to clean the grill at the end of the day without some basic health education.

 

By burden I mean that they society is required to help pay for them via taxes for schools and things like that. I still come back to the same question... It's your (any parents) choice to have the child. I did not want it. Why should I pay anything towards it? You don't have to pay anything towards my house or my dogs. Why do I pay towards your (again... any parent, not necessarily you) children? Why do parents deserve a tax break? Why don't I?

[fantastic_four]

[Why should I pay anything towards it? You don't have to pay anything towards my house or my dogs. Why do I pay towards your (again... any parent, not necessarily you) children? Why do parents deserve a tax break? Why don't I?

 

Because without other people, there is no society...you wouldn't have roads or supermarkets or television or the Internet without people having kids. People who don't need all those things are always free to go live in the wilderness somewhere. I haven't thought about it much and I'm not sure what the reasons for tax breaks on kids are, but I assume it's because the capacity of the US isn't full yet, and more people means a healthier country. If we were overpopulated like India or Japan, or if there weren't enough resources to support a population such as is true in many African countries, I suppose there would be tax DISincentives towards having kids.

[Red Hook]

Well, if you make school tax optional, then I demand the right to have a checklist of everything my taxes go to, and be able to check off the ones I don't want to pay.

 

I am about to move into a house where the school taxes alone are about $2,400 a year. I have no children going to school in this town. Why am I happy to pay them?

 

Because I definitely benefit from living in a town with a decent school budget. The local kids are getting a great education, are benefiting from being involved in endless afterschool activitites, and have the opportunity to play on myriad sports teams etc, etc, etc. It keeps them off the street and out of trouble. And out of my liquor cabinet when I'm away for the weekend.

 

If I don't contribute my school taxes, I might have enough to buy one or two more slabbed high-grade Silver age keys per annum, but I might have to constantly replace my hub cabs, my smashed-in mail box, my windows etc etc etc each year. And I'm not even getting into the whole karma-we-are-family-it-takes-a-village stuff.

 

So you won't find me complaining about that particular item on my yearly tax bill.

 

Now, as for the appropriations for Bush's continuing search for WMDs......where can I sign off on those?

[Red Hook]

One other thing......if you think the money collected via school taxes is not being used properly.....that's another thing. I'd suggest you get on the town council and make some changes.

[Aman619]

I do have children.... And if you choose not to, good for you. As for the reasons why having children or not doesnt equate with the Super Size Me discussion has been answered for me by others very nicely.

[BradleyX2]

Steve:

I'm gonna try to have sex while I am drunk and blame my lack of performance on alcohol.

 

 

dillmeister:

Steve, Im available if you need help making this documentary.

 

 

Aaag! BEGONE mental image! BEGONE!!!

[Apotheosis]

Because without other people, there is no society...you wouldn't have roads or supermarkets or television or the Internet without people having kids. People who don't need all those things are always free to go live in the wilderness somewhere. I haven't thought about it much and I'm not sure what the reasons for tax breaks on kids are, but I assume it's because the capacity of the US isn't full yet, and more people means a healthier country. If we were overpopulated like India or Japan, or if there weren't enough resources to support a population such as is true in many African countries, I suppose there would be tax DISincentives towards having kids.

 

And there is a reason for rushing to the "capacity" point in this country? That didn't work too well for China. I agree that we are a society and that we need to support each other for the overall good of all. I don't agree that those of us who chose not to have children should pay more than those that do.

[Aman619]

interesting you pointed to China's recent experience with over-population. There is an article in the Week in Review section todays NYT suggesting that China's solution to legally force limits on #s of children permitted may unwittingly doom their economic boom in the decades ahead. Seems there are going to be way too many old people for society to support with so few (and mostly male) children since 1979. The Law of Unintended Consequences once again!

[Apotheosis]

Well, if you make school tax optional, then I demand the right to have a checklist of everything my taxes go to, and be able to check off the ones I don't want to pay.

 

And this kind of plays to my point that I lost somewhere in my rantings... The person I first responded to said that people who chose to eat too much and get diabetes and other related diseases should pay for their own health care. I was trying to make the point that if you do that then you have to let people like me not pay for kids in any way. Where does it end? Do I like paying for the schools? Not really, but I definitely see the need. Do I think I should pay more in taxes because I don't have them? Hell NO!

 

Because I definitely benefit from living in a town with a decent school budget. The local kids are getting a great education, are benefiting from being involved in endless afterschool activitites, and have the opportunity to play on myriad sports teams etc, etc, etc. It keeps them off the street and out of trouble. And out of my liquor cabinet when I'm away for the weekend.

 

This actually made me laugh... it keeps the kids out of the liquor cabinet? Back when I was in school the rich school down the road had the most alcoholics and drug addicts by far. Better schools doesn't mean less corruption of the youth.

 

Now, as for the appropriations for Bush's continuing search for WMDs......where can I sign off on those?

 

Ok... I'll show my ignorance here... what does WMDs stand for?