Blake Schwendiman's Blog and Blook

This movie you refer to is not a documentary, because a documentary normally requires some facts to be present. Yes, in a month of just eating McDonalds he gained some weight and his health went to pot, but he does not prove it is the fault of the food he ate. To start with, he decided what to put in his mouth. Second, if he had went to the most health concious place around and ate the healthiest diet available, but drank as much soda as he did during that period, do you think he would gain any less weight? Third, I found a site one-time where a guy challenged this movie. He made the same commitments to eat at McD's that the fakeumnetry maker made, but he had diet cola. After 30 days he had lost weight. After 90 days his weight loss continued.

The point, the movie puts forward information and leads you to believe that McD's is bad for you, but the information put forward does not meet the standards of the scientific method. Was the problem the food, or the soda, or some combination of both. If you drank as much soda as he did and ate mom's home cooking, would your health be any better? As for me, I don't think so.

But the point of the film was to get the maker some money and noteriety of the David and Goliath kind. Also, he wanted to blame the "obesity crisis" on McD's and capatalism in general.

Just think about it, which do you think will cause you to gain more weight; ground beef, vegtables and bread; or flavored sugar water? Especially when, by weight, you are taking in three or more times the sugar water than the other three.

Sorry, this just deserved a rant.

That was a disturubing moving and I was not that big a fan of McDees before watching it, I was less of a fan afterwards.

One book you might find interesting if you haven't read it yet is "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. It will be even more indepth on the fast food industry and not in a complimentary way.

I probably should avoid this all together but here goes anyway because most of this comment caused at least as defensive a feeling for me as the original post apparently did for WyerByter.

WyerByter said: "The point, the movie puts forward information and leads you to believe that McD's is bad for you"
Hmmm, not what I got. I got that our society is driven by convenience and speed and it's being obtained but at the expense of our health which most of us turn a blind eye to. If I were doing a study on fast food I'd start with McD's too. It's logical given that almost half the fast food consumers are eating there, although I wouldn't go as extreme as only their food for an entire month. That's just nasty by itself. His extreme consumption decision is paralleled only by our extreme tunnel vision on the film's purpose as you stated it here. Although even if a few people only got that from the film then good still came of it.

"If you drank as much soda as he did and ate mom's home cooking, would your health be any better? As for me, I don't think so."
Soda is a huge part of the equation. I think that's why they included a man who drank 2 gallons of it a day and had gone blind once...nothing in his story about eating McD's every day. But ANY healthy food choice will counter attack a negative one. The impact will depend on the ratio consumed of either. It is ludicrous to me to say that soda with healthy food is no different or as bad for you as soda with unhealthy, highly processed food. Everything has its opposite. And diet soda isn't the opposite of regular soda and it doesn't make soda good for you or healthy.

"But the point of the film was to get the maker some money and noteriety of the David and Goliath kind. Also, he wanted to blame the "obesity crisis" on McD's and capatalism in general."
Wow, I'm amazed that you know the guy so well to know his thoughts, intentions and reasons. It seems to me that if all he cared about were money and notoriety that he'd have suckered someone else to take the personal health hit for the experiment and just done the easy part of taping and watching them. If the only purpose was to damn McD's and blame them for all the obesity out there he would have excluded any other information, film or discussion that wasn't McD's specific. There would have been no need for the segment on food in the schools, 2 gallon a day soda guy, ice cream woes, or a bunch of other stuff. And if capitalism isn't a part of the equation then why have we moved from 200 calorie small fries to over 1/2 lb fries? Greed, money, convenience. . . they're all intertwined in the equation no one stands alone. While I may not agree with all the methods of the film, I disagree that any of it was as exclusive or extreme as you describe. I guess we just see what we want to see.

So at the end of the day it appears that we agree that soda is evil and our consumption of it is out of control and powerfully detrimental to our health. It appears that we both see that society needs scapegoats to rationalize and justify our personal beliefs and/or actions. And both our comments are evidence that we likely share a strong reaction to a view or presentation coming across as extreme, exclusive and highly judgemental. And sorry to say it but pot, I'm afraid you're as black as your perceived kettle on this one.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with out some black on their hands in this discussion, myself included; Mountain Dew lover and french fry queen. I'm with the original suggestion that everyone should see this film. Regardless of what each person chooses to see, there is something to be seen and that, in my opinion, is of value.

Holly