quote:

---

After a month of eating only McDonald's food, a teacher in Edmonton has lost weight, lowered his blood pressure and won a bet with his biology students, but nutritionists say he's risking his health.

---

quote:

---

Unlike the documentary maker, Sayer wanted to show he could lose weight and stay healthy on the fast food diet, which included the chain's salads. (...) While Spurlock got as much exercise as an average American, Sayer pumped iron while on the diet and did one-hour cardio workouts six days a week.

---

quote:

---

He also varied his menu choices, choosing small and medium fries, coleslaw and diet Coke.

---

quote:

---

Sayer started the exercise regimen two years ago, lost weight and then plateaued on what he called a "lousy diet.". After 28 days of McDonald's, Sayer has lost 17 pounds and his blood pressure has improved. Dieticians at the University of Alberta have analysed his diet. They concluded Sayer lost weight because he's eating less,

---

So he's basically demonstrated that the McDonald's 'healthy options' menu doesn't provide sufficient calories for a person who engages in heavy physical labour. Hell, Lance Armstrong probably would have lost weight on this diet: not enough calories to cycle for 8 hours a day, every day!

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

I thought he made it clear at the beginning that he was going to demonstrate that it's possible to eat McDonald's food for every meal, and NOT gain masses of weight, experience ill-health, etc., and it appears he did exactly that.

So now you know: always get the biggest and greasiest option, never exercise, and you'll have problems.

quote:

---

Les Sayer set out to recreate the diet behind the hit film Super Size Me

---

quote:

---

Unless the CBC is misreporting

---

quote:

---

Les Sayer set out to recreate the diet behind the hit film Super Size Me

---

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

In Super Size Me, it was the biggest greasiest options that were eaten, and nothing else.

---

I thought the movie was brilliant. Any over-indulgence in food from a supposed variety of things that a "restaurant" such as MacDonald's serves should just make you fat, at worst. What it did to Spurlock was freaking scary.

Spurlock wasn't trying to prove that you CANNOT eat healthily at McDonald's, period. In fact, he even said in the movie that he's not saying people should never eat fast food. He's saying that with the AVERAGE amount of physical activity for the AVERAGE American, and eating the SUGGESTED portion sizes that McDonald's suggests themselves (which is the reason he had the rule in his experiment that he MUST supersize every time he is asked to by the McDonald's employees), you will become unhealthy by eating there.

quote:

---

He was reproducing a cultural lifestyle that is unhealthy, and trying to combat the misconceptions about it.

---

quote:

---

In a written statement, McDonald's Canada said: "We are not affiliated in any way with this individual."

---

quote:

---

If you're going to eat about 10 times the amount of McD's that the average person would, why shouldn't you do more exercise too

---

Activity required to burn off this package of junk food:

quote:

---

So, are you saying that the more fast food a person eats, the more they should exercise? I agree. That would be good to put on packaging.

---

quote:

---

The point is that Les Sayer followed the diet that McDonald's Corp. promotes - the one they would have everyone in the world eat, if they could. Sayer let himself order anything on the menu - if they didn't suggest otherwise. Of course, McDonald's employees are required to do so: "Do you want fries with that?", "Do you want to supersize that?"

---

Well, they ask you if you want it supersized each time you order something, but they don't force you to sign a binding guarantee that you're always going to supersize it each time you go into McDonalds from that point onward.

quote:

---

If I go to a cafe every day and the guy always asks me if I want ice cream with my apple pie, is he responsible for my health problems if I say yes every time and end up high cholestrol?

---

quote:

---

A bartender is held responsible for the state of his/her clientele at the end of the day.

---

Yes, in cases where the client is too intoxicated too make a rational decision. Say what you will about McDonalds, I don't think their food gets you drunk or stoned.

Did the guy in Supersize It eat all his meals at the same McDonalds?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

McDonald's profits from pushing a disease-inducing diet.

---

And that profit would dry right up if people said "No thanks."

I think I have an idea that might make everyone happy though: any adult who feels they're too stupid or gullible or weak to look out for their own best interests could sign away full power of attorney to McDonald's, who'd then be responsible for their well-being.

Any adult who doesn't want McDonald's to play parent as they play child would still be permitted to make their own decisions, not just while standing in line at McDonald's of course, but when eating at other restaurants, purchasing groceries, etc.

This might help clarify — both legally and morally — who's responsible for you, and who isn't.

Ed'd to add: You know what makes me laugh? The critics who insist that McDonald's has to take responsibility for the well-being of the world (because people apparently cannot) are also the people who never eat at McDonald's.

Do they not see the logical nonsensery of, on one hand, insisting that people are unable to resist McDonald's or its marketing, and on the other hand being a shining example of just how easy it is to do so, if one wishes.

Lard: does McDonald's control you? Yes or no?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Did the guy in Supersize It eat all his meals at the same McDonalds?

---

It's Supersize Me. Spurlock wasn't feeding that crap to his dog.

quote:

---

I thought he made it clear at the beginning that he was going to demonstrate that it's possible to eat McDonald's food for every meal, and NOT gain masses of weight, experience ill-health, etc., and it appears he did exactly that.

---

This is funny coming from someone who banged on about how Spurlock's regimen lacked any scientific validity (which was true) but this guy "demonstrates" something??? anything???

What he does actually demonstrate is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning.

A) If the energy you burn (caloric intake) exceeds caloric intake you will lose weight. This guy reduced his caloric intake and maintained a relatively extreme fitness regime.

B) Improved cardio vascular function has the added health benefit of improving the functions of other organs digestive, liver and kidney, thus increasing efficiency in metabolizing toxins.

C)If you choose less damaging options from Mcdonald's menu the impact will be less pronounced. Let us be clear the impact of his diet has not truly been assessed.

this guy has also demonstrated that he is somewhat of an idiot and should probably not be teaching children science since his understandng of methods is so poor.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

but this guy "demonstrates" something??? anything???

---

Well, let's take a look at what I said:

Did he eat nothing but McDonald's food?

Yup.

Did he NOT gain masses of weight?

Yup.

Did he NOT experience ill-health?

Yup.

quote:

---

It's Supersize Me. Spurlock wasn't feeding that crap to his dog.

To answer your question: No. He was travelling quite a bit while shooting the film. He did eat a number of meals at the same McD's near his home in New York, though.

---

Thanks for the correction, though I'm not sure what exaclty you thought you were proving with your sarcasm. I never doubted that he ate each meal himself.

quote:

---

What were these employees supposed to do?

---

quote:

---

Did he NOT experience ill-health?

---

Actually he did not demonstrate anything of the sort. As the article stated nutritionists believed his diet was harmful. The actual impact of the diet has not been assessed in any meaningful way. You need to factor in the mitigating variable of exercise on general health if you are attempting to make any statement about diet. Hence the confound

As far as the weight gain whether it is Mcdonald's or anything else is irrelevant unless you believe it somehow possible for someone's caloric intake to be significantly less than caloric output and they still gain weight.

If I only eat at McDonald's but then put a finger down my throat after each meal I also won't gain weight and???

quote:

---

Ed'd to add: You know what makes me laugh? The critics who insist that McDonald's has to take responsibility for the well-being of the world (because people apparently cannot) are also the people who never eat at McDonald's.

Do they not see the logical nonsensery of, on one hand, insisting that people are unable to resist McDonald's or its marketing, and on the other hand being a shining example of just how easy it is to do so, if one wishes.

---

First of all one might wish to start Mcdonald's not engage in Fraud. i.e. lying that there food is part of a "healthy lifestyle" "balanced diet" or whatever absurd claims. The food is unhealthy full stop, it is neither healthy or balanced, it is high fat, high sugar and high sodium.

These lies are behind the indoctination of the general public to persuade them that eating such food is not damaging to their health. People generally do not have a strong grasp on healthy eating and nutrition. Multi million dollar advertising campaigns are not ongoing to encourage people know. Fast food and processed food companies create the illusion their food is healthy.

People become aware of the dangers of fast foods do so due to the hard work of some people in educating others of the dangers of these foods and by their own efforts to find out.

It is both the food companies and people like yourself that downplay the risk of eating such crap.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

McDonald's employees are supposed to (by corporate fiat) push unhealthy choices and even more unhealthy quantities - to each and every customer, regardless of his/her state of health.

---

How does this make them any different from any other company's employees? Do the beloved Mom and Pop grocers ask me how much chocolate I've eaten in the last month before selling me a Caramilk bar? Some of them even have signs in the window suggesting that I buy a Caramilk bar!

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

It is both the food companies and people like yourself that downplay the risk of eating such crap.

---

I'd prefer to "up-play" people's responsiblilty in looking out for their own interests. If someone is stupid enough to think that deep-fried means healthy then it's up to them to grab a brain.

Likewise anyone who thinks that a certain deodorant is going to make them irresistable to the opposite (or same!) sex, anyone who thinks that a whiter smile will result in a job, anyone who thinks that a certain car will make them a better parent, or anyone who thinks that putting fabric softener in their laundry is going to make their family ecstatic.

I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit from some feeble-minded idiot who demands millions because he bought the right toothpaste, just like the commercial showed, but failed to realize the overall happiness and well-being the commercial promised.

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Thanks for the correction, though I'm not sure what exaclty you thought you were proving with your sarcasm. I never doubted that he ate each meal himself.

Anyway, I asked the question because a previous poster had suggested that McDonalds is responsible for Spurlock's condition because they watched him get progressively sicker over a period of one month. But this idea becomes somewhat problematic, I'd say, if he was eating at various McDonalds accross the country. What were these employees supposed to do? Refuse to serve him because he looks sick?

---

A suggestion: watch the film. Spurlock never blames the employees for their menu, nor for this condition. That a lone viewer might do so is irrelevant.

quote:

---

I'd prefer to "up-play" people's responsiblilty in looking out for their own interests. If someone is stupid enough to think that deep-fried means healthy then it's up to them to grab a brain.

---

Yes in a culture of mass indoctrination blame the individual for getting the information wrong.

quote:

---

And do notice, if you haven't already, that commercial claims are intentionally vague. Delicious, convenient, healthy, easy, refreshing... these are all open to broad interpretation. No point in even trying to take them on with 'truth in advertising' or consumer fraud laws.

---

quote:

---

Yes in a culture of mass indoctrination blame the individual for getting the information wrong.

---

Are you indoctrinated?

If so, I feel sorry for you, and I think you're probably stupid.

If not, then you've just demonstrated that a little common sense can slice right through any attempt by McDonald's to make you their slave. Assuming you're not the special recipient of some "debriefing", or privy to some kind of classified information, then I can only assume that everyone who wishes to can also make up their own mind, just as you have.

Can you give me some reason why you and a few others seem to be the only people who can decide not to eat at McDonald's?? Or why you and only you seem able to realize that McDonald's is a business, whose mandate is to sell food to people (as opposed to a surrogate parent who should be looking out for our best interests and wiping our chins for us)?

quote:

---

After all you've fully bought in to the dominant narrative and ideology so you're hardly in a place to be judgmental about critical abilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

He, and this teacher, are the only two people I've ever heard of who've eaten nothing but McDonald's for 90 straight meals. If you're going to eat about 10 times the amount of McD's that the average person would, why shouldn't you do more exercise too?

---

So, you haven't seen the movie either, huh?
There was a guy in it who had not only been eating nothing but McDonald's, *for years*, he had in fact been eating nothing but BIG MACS. Freaky. The guy wasn't actually fat, although he didn't look what you'd call healthy.
And at a somewhat less extreme level, I seem to recall that the movie pointed out a fairly sizable subgroup of Americans who do in fact eat little but fast food. So while "the average" person may not do it, there's plenty of "average" people who do.

Generally, these two stunts seem unrelated to each other, so it's kind of a pity they're being linked and kind of a pity the teacher guy is linking them. I mean, they show quite separate things.

Spurlock's shows that if you operate at average American sedentary levels of exercise, eating all fast food at typical American portion sizes is gonna mess you up good.

This other guy's shows that if you exercise an hour a day six days a week, you can get away with a lot when it comes to food.

Spurlock's point should be obvious, but an astonishing number of Americans seem oblivious to it so it's apparently worth making. The other guy's is obvious, but beside the point for those of us who don't find it practical (or don't have the willpower) to do an hour a day's heavy exercise.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Ed'd to add: You know what makes me laugh? The critics who insist that McDonald's has to take responsibility for the well-being of the world (because people apparently cannot) are also the people who never eat at McDonald's.

Do they not see the logical nonsensery of, on one hand, insisting that people are unable to resist McDonald's or its marketing, and on the other hand being a shining example of just how easy it is to do so, if one wishes.

---

quote:

---

Are you indoctrinated?

---

quote:

---

IF you think you are not you are deluded Every post you make demonstrates precisely how deeply embedded you are in this cultures dominant narritive. Of course you just think it's natural you just think it's common sense.

---

It's been ages since anyone's tried the ol' "you're brainwashed, and if you don't agree it's because you're brainwashed" schtick on me. I'm almost feeling nostalgic.

quote:

---

My 'sarcasm' was actually intended as humour.

---

quote:

---

A suggestion: watch the film. Spurlock never blames the employees for their menu, nor for this condition. That a lone viewer might do so is irrelevant.

---

So now there's some choice on the McMenu, how about installing some warmer decor and comfortable seats. Why does private enterprise always have to offer the bare minimum, even when it comes to the poor and middle class slobs wanting to celebrate an exceptional week of work or months end ?.

People should make burgers and oven fries at home. A little Montreal steak sauce on lean ground burger and seared just right has more taste than a McCoronary sandwich anytime.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

People should make burgers and oven fries at home. A little Montreal steak sauce on lean ground burger and seared just right has more taste than a McCoronary sandwich anytime.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

I'm sure my mum would've appreciated that suggestion when I was in my teens.. you know, after she got home from a full time job and came home with a child in the car (from daycare) and two teenagers in the house. All hungry and none up to spending an hour prepping dinner. Thanks- it would've helped us just as much as it helps the other people who are in that position now.

quote:

---

A little Montreal steak sauce on lean ground burger and seared just right has more taste than a McCoronary sandwich anytime.

---

Bill Cosby used to do a great send-up of this back when he did stand up.

Parent: You don't need to go to McDonald's! I'll make you a Big Mac right here at home (Dad begins with a ball shaped hamburger patty that's 2 inches thick in the centre, atop a slice of white bread cut in a circular shape, topped with yellow mustard and Miracle Whip, etc., etc.)

quote:

---

It's been ages since anyone's tried the ol' "you're brainwashed, and if you don't agree it's because you're brainwashed" schtick on me. I'm almost feeling nostalgic.

---

You know Magoo we have one thing in common neither of us know what the hell you're talking about.

If someone uncritically accepts the prevailing cultural myths and assumptions it does not mean they are "brainwashed".

As far as being indoctrinated as I mentioned anyone in this culture or any other is innundated with dominant messages representing the stories or narritives concerning the way the world works. It is not as though these messages are value neutral, they are ideological and reflect the belief system of those with the resources and methods to disseminate their worldview. The dominant narrative is not derived from some imaginary "marketplace of ideas" it is the expression of those with the power and wealth to have their particular worldview maintained. Competing narratives are marginalized and dismissed or appropriated.

It was you that was so dismissive of people that buy into the fictions and fantasies of marketeers and advertisers. I was merely pointing out that you buy into pretty much the same ideology represented by the ideas of advertisers etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
...And at a somewhat less extreme level, I seem to recall that the movie pointed out a fairly sizable subgroup of Americans who do in fact eat little but fast food. So while "the average" person may not do it, there's plenty of "average" people who do...

---

quote:

---

Developing and maintaining a critical perspective is not something that comes easy or that is generally encouraged in fact it is actively discouraged.

---

I disagree. Ask people if politicians are honest, or if used car salesmen are looking out for their customers' best interests and I think the vast majority will cynically say no.

People don't need a media awareness course to understand that used car salesmen say what they need to say to get you to buy a car from them.

So I don't see any reason why someone with half a brain wouldn't extend that same awareness to anyone else trying to sell you something. I don't mean that we should all assume that every company, organization or salesperson is a liar, but rather to realize that they are giving you the version of reality that most benefits them, whether it be "This car was only driven on Sundays" to "would you like a sundae with that".

And for the record, I don't take the side I take in discussions like this one because McDonald's has indoctrinated me, nor because I believe everything that big businesses tell me. Quite the opposite, in fact. I eat at McDonald's occasionally, I eat at other restaurants occasionally, I prepare "junk" like Hamburger Helper occasionally, I buy fresh fish or local produce from the market occasionally, I eat vegetarian meals occasionally, I soak my own beans and lentils occasionally, etc.

And I know that anyone else who wants to make their own decisions can too, as soon as they want it badly enough to wise up. And if they're happy as they are, I'm OK with that too. But I certainly don't think I need warning stickers and government intervention to save me from these companies when my own common sense will do just fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
Actually that would be funny:

Activity required to burn off this package of junk food:

45 minutes of moderate jogging
2 hours of fast walking
18 hours of vacuuming
368 hours of web crawing

---

quote:

---

The dominant narrative is not derived from some imaginary "marketplace of ideas" it is the expression of those with the power and wealth to have their particular worldview maintained. Competing narratives are marginalized and dismissed or appropriated.

---

McDonalds started out as a single diner in California back in the 1950s, serving a menu similar to what they have now. At that time, they certainly weren't in any position of power or wealth. How, then, did they get to be so popular, if popularity is determined by power and wealth?

And McDonalds is generally credited with ushering in the fast food revolution in North America. How come the grocery stores, with all their power and wealth, weren't able to squash this upstart competition?

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

I think McD's did a Henry Ford of it with assembly line food. The other key ingredient was television advertising.

---

Interesting comparison with Ford, and probably apt. But then the question becomes why the "assembly line" method was so popular with the public.

quote:

---

When I see people crying out for warning labels on fast food and bans on trans fats and companies forced to take responsibility for their customer's choices I'm insulted. I don't need that, and if anyone is stupid or gullible or weak enough to need that I frankly wonder why we let them vote, drive, or have kids. They're certainly not adults, as far as I can see. Adults don't need the state to wipe their snotty noses for them.

---

Oh right in electric libertarian land it is always just a matter of "customer choices".

What about the choice not to be sold toxic sludge and told it's healthy and tastes like happy.

What is the problem about the big scary state actually acting in the interest of it's citizens and providing them with information concerning health and safety?

How else are people supposed to get reliable information about health and safety. Most information about public health and safety comes from the work of publicly funded( scary state) groups or institutions?

Corporations are certainly not interested in informed consumers they are more interested in duping them. Does government have no role in protecting it's citizens from misinformation in advertising such as claims that food is healthy?

quote:

---

What about the choice not to be sold toxic sludge and told it's healthy and tastes like happy.

---

You have that choice, don't you? I was under the impression that you probably don't patronize McDonalds. So... can't anyone else who wishes to make exactly the same choice??

quote:

---

How else are people supposed to get reliable information about health and safety.

---

I have no problem with the government making nutritional info available. Which they do. Go to the library.

What I suspect you and others want is for businesses to be pressured to take the place of the government on this.

quote:

---

Does government have no role in protecting it's citizens from misinformation in advertising such as claims that food is healthy?

---

Sadly (for you), nobody has shown that the occasional fast food meal, eaten as part of a healthy lifestyle, is specifically unhealthy. This isn't like the government stepping in to save us from Asbestos. You're asking that one small facet of our food choices be singled out as though it were the only unhealthy thing available.

If you'd like to be consistent, and extend your concern to every appropriate food, you might get my support. Chocolate bars would need to be labelled. Butter would need to be labelled. Sugar would need to be labelled. And so on and so on.

If your concern doesn't extend past one or two restaurants then it seems to me your "concern" is just opportunism. Do you really believe we need to label all "unhealthy" food?

quote:

---

It's more than apparent that you have the upmost contempt for people who are not able to access reliable information.

---

Who are these people? Why didn't they listen in school? Why can't they go to the library?

The fact is, they don't care. You make it sound like they're hungry for some good old nutritional science, but we're all conspiring to deny them. When they care enough to go to the library to look it up, then they'll know. It's their job, not a restaurant's job, to educate themselves.

And I'm guessing that's what it really comes down to, isn't it? You know that most of them don't really care enough to make an effort, and so you want to force the big bad restaurant chain to make that effort for them.

Hence my contempt. I don't really care one way or the other, assuming they're happy. They're free to choose whatever lifestyle they want without my contempt, but if they're going to simultaneously insist on their "right to know", and also do nothing active about it, then yes, I have contempt for them. Why shouldn't I? That's just laziness. My contempt isn't because "they can't access" the information, it's because they can.

If you can show me someone who honestly and truly cannot access dietary information, I'll make an exception. Remember, if you can't read a book then you can't read a warning label, and if you can't walk to the library then you can't walk to McDonald's.

quote:

---

How can people make decisions when there is not only a lack of good information but such a massive surplus of misinformation.

---

Assuming again that you've chosen not to patronize McDonald's, how did you??

ed'd to add: before anyone says anything, do we all remember the ad campaigns for butter and for sugar, touting them as healthy and natural (which they are, along with fattening and disease-causing if misused)?

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Why didn't they listen in school?

---

quote:

---

Maybe poor diet caused them problems with attention and concentration.

---

"During the two years spent researching this book, I ate an enormous amount of fast food. Most of it tasted pretty good. That is one of the main reasons people buy fast food; it has been carefully designed to taste good. It’s also inexpensive and convenient. But the value meals, two-for-one deals, and free refills of soda give a distorted sense of how much fast food actually costs. ....Hundreds of millions of people buy fast food every day without giving it much thought, unaware of the subtle and not so subtle ramifications of their purchases. They rarely consider where this food came from, how it was made, what it is doing to the community around them. They just grab their tray off the counter, find a table, take a seat, unwrap the paper, and dig in. The whole experience is transitory and soon forgotten. I’ve written this book out of a belief that people should know what lies behind the shiny, happy surface of every fast food transaction. They should know what really lurks between those sesame-seed buns. As the old saying goes: You are what you eat."

I'd reccomend Fast Food Nation to anybody interested in a thorough examination of the fast food phenomenon and the westernization of food consumption worldwide.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: steffie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quagmire:
I love it! The NDP wants to ban trans fats and legalise marijuana, sort of like being pro choice and anti capital punishment.
Are there going to be all sorts of warning labels printed on every bag of pot? What happens if some, gasp, corporation sells pot, won't the world end? Or will the power of MJ fight off the evil corporation's bad mojo?

---

quote:

---

I'd reccomend Fast Food Nation to anybody interested in a thorough examination of the fast food phenomenon and the westernization of food consumption worldwide.

---

quote:

---

I love it! The NDP wants to ban trans fats and legalise marijuana, sort of like being pro choice and anti capital punishment.
Are there going to be all sorts of warning labels printed on every bag of pot? What happens if some, gasp, corporation sells pot, won't the world end? Or will the power of MJ fight off the evil corporation's bad mojo?

---

A happy medium solution would be for the government to publish the latest health research on substances, and allow consumers to acceess it if they want. I'm guessing they do this already.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I think his point is that banning one unhealthy thing, while legalizing another (and leaving it to individuals to make their own choices) is inconsistent and a bit perverse. And it is.

---

quote:

---

A happy medium solution would be for the government to publish the latest health research on substances, and allow consumers to acceess it if they want.

---

But what if we give people the information they need to make choices, but they keep on making "incorrect" choices anyway?

Once again, I find it hilarious that the people most interested in banning, restricting or labelling various products or substances are those who've already made choices in their own lives that make that unnecessary, thereby proving easily that the government's intervention isn't needed. Perhaps they believe that they alone are capable of making decisions, and that everyone else needs to be saved from themself.

quote:

---

There's certainly no need for the government to make educational nor informative materials available on the product itself.

---

ed'd to change: why, just out of curiousity, do you feel that basic information (eg: "EATING ALL FRIED FOODS, EVERY DAY, AND SITTING ON YOUR ASS WATCHING THE TUBE ISN'T GOOD FOR YOU") has to be written right on our food?

There seem to be many contributors to this thread who've managed to make their own decisions without the need of such measures. Do you believe that they're superior beings, and that everyone else is too stupid to wonder or care what they're eating? Or do you really just hope that the warnings will "scare" customers into not eating fast food?

The information is available, for anyone who wishes it, in a booklet right beside the cash. Full, thorough nutritional information, with caloric breakdown, fats, proteins and carbs, ingredients... everything.

Why is that not sufficient? Because it's not scaring off as many customers as you'd hoped? Because when push comes to shove, most people really aren't all that concerned with what's in something they only eat occasionally (and that's pretty much the same as what they'd get at the place next door?)

quote:

---

Why waste everyone's time, when perfect knowledge is already within the public's grasp?

---

What, exactly, does "perfect" knowledge mean?

If you mean "adequate information for them to make informed decisions", then your facetiousness is wasted: we have adequate information. Once again, is your insistence that we don't have adequate information (and therefore need our mummies and.. er, Government to protect us) based on the fact that this knowledge isn't driving people away like you hoped it might?

Otherwise I can't see what you're snarking about. Go to the (free, public) library and ask if they have any books on basic nutrition. Pop your head into a McDonald's and grab a nutritional monograph (sorry... not available from Mom & Pop outlets) and read it.

Then tell me what else you feel you need in order to make an informed decision. Seriously.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

In fact, I doubt if many consumers even knew trans fat was.

However unhealthy marijuana use is, it is not a product that is put into food without notification to the consuming public. If it were, I think you could say those foods that contain it should let consumers know.

People can make a choice as to whether they want to smoke pot or not.

quote:

---

If they don't need help, then are Canadian's choosing to be obese on purpose?.

---

I would say that they're not choosing to not be obese.

I also think the question is similar to asking why so many drivers are "choosing" to die in DUI-related accidents. Of course they're not choosing that, they're just not taking the active steps to choose the opposite.

quote:

---

Or are there elements in our system who rely on the seven deadly sins and ignorance to make their livings ?.

---

Well, as a university employee, I can tell you that we certainly require ignorance to make a living. If humans were born with university degrees, we'd be out of jobs.

Anyway, I don't know how far down the "ignorance and sin" road I can go with you, because I don't believe that people patronize restaurants out of ignorance nor gluttony.

I think that to the average person, the difference between a burger fried at a restaurant and a burger fried at home is negligible, from a nutritional standpoint. Perhaps there is some difference, but if it looks similar, tastes similar, is made from the same material, and doesn't cause any specific ill-health, then why would the average person go on a quest for more information?? I don't know about you, but when I eat at a restaurant and I find the meal satisfactory, I don't demand proof that their salad dressing doesn't contain more salt than I want, or canola oil that could be genetically modified, or what-have-you.

The convenience, of course, makes the restaurant win (when they do). For many people, a meal on the go has merit (whether or not you personally think they should be trying to slow down some) and so a reasonable burger at a reasonable price, ready in minutes, with no dishes to wash, doesn't ring any alarm bells.

I think if we really feel the need to 'warn' people of the possible hazards of pigging out on a gutful of fried foods every day and laying around on the couch, the warnings should go on the couch.

As this thread shows, two people, both eating at McDonald's every day, had vastly different results. What was basically the same? The restaurant. What was markedly different? Their exercise level. Seems to me that exercise should be the starting point for a solution, not the food.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

On most issues, you're totally pushing the idea that lots of people are incompetent and/or wrongheaded and that's why they're doing the wrong things.

---

I believe that people can sometimes be stupid, and can sometimes make choices that I, personally, would not make, but I don't think I've ever suggested that as adults they don't have the right to make them.

Not to be mistaken with an endorsement of Soviet communism, but the Russian's did make a science of exercise during the cold war years. Their thoughts on exercise were that easy to figure out; that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, and un unhealthy, unproductive worker, too.

They built huge enclosed cities way up north that included Olympic sized sports complexes, similar to what we have in city centres in Canada now. Teh Russian's discovered that a variety of exercise and sports made the best athletes. That system changed the way professional hockey players trained in the off season. Russian's and Ukrainian's dominated Olympic weight lifting and other sports for decades.

Ottawa and Nepean have ample recreation and exercise centres. But the outlying rural areas, like my hometown, have one, YMCA and one commercial facility, and one golf course. And like my hometown, they're usually situated at a certain end of town where the middle class can walk to in good time. There are ski hills just outside of the city, and it costs. Cost is a barrier for too many people scraping to get by as it is accross Canada as economic reports reveal.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well, that's one possible mitigating factor, if you're ready to take the elitist position: define all the other adults as children who need your help.

For what it's worth, I think that's a big part of the whole "we need to label hamburgers (for everyone except us)" movement, but nobody has the courage to just come right out and say it. It certainly opens up a messy can of worms though. If the other adults aren't capable of looking after themselves then how are they capable of driving? Of voting? Of raising children?

---

Yeah, tell me about it. I'll come right out and say it though. I think a sizable number of Canadians (at least a quarter) aren't capable of doing those things.

A friend and I were having a discussion related to this today. He works in a climbing gym and he was going on about how helpless people are when they come in for the first time. People are intimidated about how they get the harness on and too reassure them he says, "Don't worry, all you have to know how to do is tie a knot." At which point many will look freaked out and reply, "I can't tie knots." Then he'll say, "Well, no woriies, because I've been doing this for quite a while, and I've learned that I can teach anybody how to tie a knot." And often people will sincerely say something like, "well, I don't think you'll be able to teach me," and then chuckling a bit.

Some people have been conditioned to expect everything to be done for them. In the case of McDonald's nobody's doing it for them. It may seem reasonable to me and to you that eating well and getting plenty of exercise is useful, but for whatever reason many people are not doing that. McDonald's isn't the problem though, I think the problem is broader and includes how people think about food and health in general (among other things).

And don't get me wrong, many other people (and some of he same people) eat at McDonald's because it's fast & cheap, and they don't have the luxury of money or time.

Edited to explain: when I say "the ignorant", I'm not being eliteist. Everybody is ignorant on some aspect(s) of life.

[ 09 March 2005: Message edited by: Briguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surferosad:
Uh... I think i should remind you that massive injections of all kinds of muscle building drugs was an integral part of the Soviet and Eastern European sports regime. And their system, was i think, geared exclusively towards the production of elite athletes. Not that the west was, or is, any better regarding this...

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

---

Yes, both sides were using steroids, I believe. But drugs alone do not make super-athletes. The Soviets spent great time and effort developing exercise science. It was obvious from watching the Canada-Russia hockey summit series in the 1970's which players were better conditioned. North American hockey was transformed since those friendly competitions. Of course, oneof our teams did employ certain Russian-style methods of off-season training, and Canada's "Club de Hockey" put on a clinic for the Russkies on New Years eve, 1975.

With regards to Supersize Me specifically, I think a lot of the value of the film really was in the way it took aim at the McDonald's name as well as fast food and advertising in general. Dave Morris and Helen Steel writ large. It was a film about health, but it was also a film about psychology and the power of the media, as many of Spurlock's interview subjects attested.