Just watched super size me!

[Miss Jasmine]

Unless you have an underlying medical condition such as diabetes, the notion that some foods are "better" than others doesn't make sense.

Huh???? You mean a french fry is equal to say a banana?

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that french fries are still prominently featured in advertising but in the above picture so is a hamburger, drink and Frosty. I would personally be offended if Wendy's stopped marketing fries in some misguided notion that they have to take care of people because they don't. People need to take care of themselves and just about anyone can eat the occasional french fry without harm.

People don't seem to realize that they need to police themselves. They shouldn't eat a large order of almost anything by themselves. But they do and they way too often blame everyone but themselves for that.

 

[bicker]

I agree tfat french fries are still prominently featured in advertising but in the above picture so is a hamburger, drink and Frosty.

But not the salads. Not the fruit alternative to french fries.

I would personally be offended if Wendy's stopped marketing fries in some misguided notion that they have to take care of people because they don't.

I would consider it anti-capitalist and therefore un-American, and as you alluded to, would reflect a co-opting of the patron's responsibility to be personally accountable for their own decisions and actions.

That's not the point.

The point is that many people have become morbidly obese, principally due to the food that fast food chains market to them aggressively. The "fault" clearly lies with the people eating the food, but that does not mean that the typical food fast food chains sell is substantially healthy.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

I don't see why this movie is any big revelation to some people.

and that is a fair point. But conversely, I'm always puzzled as to why the existence of this movie seems to almost anger some people. It is just a movie. It didn't have to be made any more than March of The Penguins or Star Wars HAD to be made. But I don't think it did so well as a fluke, it had a distinct message that people were interested in.

I'm nearly 38 years old, I can remember when I was in about 4th grade participating in a Marketing Study for a grad student at a local college. Out of all of us 4th Graders, he would take us into a room and ask us to recite certain things -- The Preamble to the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The 10 Commandments -- and 2 Beef Patties, Special Sauce, Lettuce Cheese, Pickles Onions on a Sesame Seed Bun. Guess which one I knew well?

The point is, beginning with my generation McDonalds has spent Billions of dollars inserting Brand Loyalty into our brains. Is it honestly so bad that one Independent filmmaker produced a documentary showing the other side?

Hop on into any elementary school in our nation and you can clearly see the problem of childhood obesity. In addition, the last study I read showed that 1 in 3 adults in America is now classified as obese. Is it really THAT obvious that Americans already know the effects of unhealthy eating?

 

[Planogirl]

I honestly believe that most Americans know that most McDonald's food is unhealthy but I think that many people just don't care. I don't think that people are as ignorant as some make them out to be; they hear about things and they can see themselves in the mirror.

Why do people overeat and also eat the wrong foods? That's an interesting question but I can't imagine that advertising really has all that much to do with it. The desire for the "wrong" food is already there and the fast food restaurants are marketing to that desire.

As for Supersize Me annoying people, I don't know about others but it annoyed me because the movie is all about excess and yet people seem to often miss that point. The man doesn't eat one small order of fries a week, he eats massive amounts each day. Yet many people swear that they will never eat a single fry again seeming to assume that one single fry caused his problems.

ETA: I can't type today!!!

 

[ead79]

I haven’t seen the movie (no thanks, I don’t like being grossed out). However, the one thing I think is ironic about the movie is that people have decided that fast food restaurants are the “bad guys.” People seem content to ignore the fat laden, huge portions served by regular sit-down restaurants. I’m not saying that it’s smart to eat a ton of fast food, but the choices at sit-down restaurants are often as bad and frequently even worse health-wise.

For example, you can look at the Weight Watchers points values for various entrees at sit-down restaurants vs. fast food meals. For those not familiar with WW points, they are comprised of fat grams and calories along with fiber grams. Foods with higher fat and calories have more “points” than foods with lower fat and calories. Fiber grams help lower the points of food in general (though high fiber foods are typically relatively healthy in general).

McDonald’s:
Quarter Pounder with Cheese – 13.5 points
Medium Fry – 10 points
Medium Coke – 5 points
Total points: 28.5 points

Chili’s:
Monterey Chicken with vegetables and mashed potatoes: 28.5 points
Medium Coke – 5 points
Total points: 33.5 points

Houlihan’s:
Chicken fajitas – 31 points
Medium Coke – 5 points
Total points: 36 points

O’Charley’s:
Half rack of ribs w/ fries & slaw – 44 points
Medium Coke – 5 points
Total points: 49 points

To put that in perspective, a person on Weight Watchers that weighs between 175 – 200 pounds gets 24 points per day.

I guess my point is just that there are bad choices everywhere, not just at fast food restaurants. Since the portion sizes tend to be so large at sit-down restaurants they are often even worse.

 

[bicker]

I can't imagine that advertising really has all that much to do with it. The desire for the "wrong" food is already there and the fast food restaurants are marketing to that desire.

There is no question that we're hard-wired to prefer high-calorie foods, and more specifically hard-wired towards obesity in times of plenty. It's part of our biology. However, that doesn't obviate the impact advertising has on exascerbating the attempts by many to overcome those biological imperatives.

 

[Planogirl]

There is no question that we're hard-wired to prefer high-calorie foods, and more specifically hard-wired towards obesity in times of plenty. It's part of our biology. However, that doesn't obviate the impact advertising has on exascerbating the attempts by many to overcome those biological imperatives.

But bicker we deal with that every day. Whenever we visit relatives, go to a grocery store or any restaurant, we're bombarded with choices and many of them are the "wrong" ones. We have to be strong enough to overcome all of those temptations or accept that these bad items can only be treats on maybe one's birthday or the 31st of every month.

I see what you're saying though. Ads showing the gooey, greasy stuff do pound relentlessly on our willpower and those who don't put up much of a fight (like myself) will probably give in.

 

[Geoff_M]

Huh???? You mean a french fry is equal to say a banana?

No, I'm saying that neither is inherently "better" than the other. Both have nutritional value and contain things that the body needs. The problem comes when looking at the proportions that certain types of foods make up in one's diet. Show me someone that consumes 5,000 calories a day of fruits and vegatables (with little exercise) and I'll show you someone that's also got health issues like in SSM. Fast foods can be part of a balanced diet. Our problem is that we consume too much when it comes to burgers, fries, and such.

As for the notion raised here that "real" foods are superior to "processed" foods... Again that's garbage. For starters, until a few years ago experts couldn't even agree on a definition of "natural" (vs. processed) foods. Even though today governmental rules have defined what is "natural", no claims may be made by the marketer that such foods are safer or healthier than their "non-natural" counterparts because the science doesn't support those notions. I'm not arguing that "natural" products aren't good, I'm arguing that "non-natural" foods aren't "bad" or "worse" in and of themselves.

 

[bicker]

No, I'm saying that neither is inherently "better" than the other.

You've said it a few times, but without providing any reason to believe it. There are indeed "junk" foods -- foods for which the nutritional value offered is far below the average of all foods -- wasted calories, if you will. There is balance, surely, but some foods wreck balance more egregiously than others.

As for the notion raised here that "real" foods are superior to "processed" foods... Again that's garbage.

Excellent point, and you're right on the money. Arsenic is not only "real" but also "natural" -- and it is not "superior" in food, no matter what. I've generally found that the processed foods I find most convenient to eat are far far superior than the so-called "real" or "natural" foods I would eat instead.

 

[FlowersChild]

Before you read this post I just wanted to make it clear that I am just giving my opinion. I am not trying to push my views on anyone.

I just want to point out that meat in Grocery stores can be just as bad if not worse than the meat at fast food places. Most meat that you buy at the Grocery Store comes from places called factory farms. Farm animals are packed together in those places. Plus it's nasty. Those animals are abused like crazy. Many of them have wounds that are left untreated. The smell in factory farms from what I heard is just so awful.

Some workers beat those animals to keep them together and some workers even hurt and abuse them for fun. When the animals go to the ummmm bathroom the workers don't clean that up very well so the animals have to live in that plus the many other horrors which sometimes can be dirty water and bad food. Plus many of these animals are given drugs and other stuff like that.

Anyways since these animals live like this their sickness can spread very easy. Don't think that they can clean out all the sickness and filth after they kill these animals. When they end up at the Grocery Store that sickness is still in the meat as well as drugs that they gave the animals.

Animals who end up at McDonalds and Wendy many times have it a lot better than animals who end up at Grocery Stores. McDonalds and other fast food places have improved their animal welfare laws and this is not the case with many factory farms that Grocery Stores do business with. I am not saying that animal on factory farms who end up at McDonalds have a good life they suffer as well but their suffering is not as bad as many of the animals on factory farms who end up at Grocery Stores. So meat at McDonalds may not be good for you but I would say that meat at Grocery stores can be worse for you.

If you want to eat meat than I would say the best thing to do would be to find a local farmer who raises their own Cows,Chickens and Pigs ect. > Organic meat is a lot better than factory farm meat. I myself will not eat any meat at all even if it's Organic. I Love animals very very much so I don't eat meat. Also I don't eat meat because I don't think meat is good for us. I am just saying that Organic meat is not as bad as factory farm meat.

 

[Geoff_M]

You've said it a few times, but without providing any reason to believe it.

It's not just me... It's the FDA. Food marketers aren't allowed to run around claiming that Food A is "better" than Food B. That's because, for starters, such a claim is meaningless, and secondly it can't be proven. This is the crux of my point.

 

[bicker]

It's not just me... It's the FDA. Food marketers aren't allowed to run around claiming that Food A is "better" than Food B. That's because, for starters, such a claim is meaningless, and secondly it can't be proven. This is the crux of my point.

Uh, sorry, but you'll have to give me some indication about what you're referring to, since in all my research on nutrition I have never encountered any such restriction. The FDA itself investigates such claims and ensures there is scientific basis for such claims when they're made.

 

[MrsNick]

Haven't seen Supersize Me, but have read Fast Food Nation (yikes, just had to correct what I first typed: Fat Food Nation ).

I didn't eat at McD's for at least two years after I read that.

But my choice not to eat fast food had to do with more than just the poor nutrition that is included with fast food, but also with the economics of fast food and that cooking is something that is performed on an assembly line. In other words, the types of jobs and wages provided by fast food companies, the lack of security at many fast food locations (open late with just a couple of teenagers minding the store), and also the way that suppliers for fast food companies and smaller farmers are treated, and how livestock are treated. (These are some of the same reasons I don't shop at Walmart - obviously not referring to livestock here).

It's the whole fast food culture that I don't like. I also disagree with the statement that natural foods aren't any better for you than processed foods. I think that is really a difficult statement to evaluate. It depends on how you define processed vs. natural. If you define processed as fresh vegetables that have been packaged for purchase at a grocery store vs. vegetables that you grow yourself, then, okay, I'm with you. If, however, you mean to tell me that frozen TV dinners are nutritionally equal to a meal that you prepare yourself, then I can't say that I'm in agreement. Food such as these usually have much more sodium, fat and sugars than unprocessed foods.

I use convenience foods (i.e. bagged salads), and don't think it takes any longer to broil a lean piece of steak or chicken cutlet than it does to bake a TV dinner or fry/broil a hamburger. But I still think that you get a better quality of food from eating lots of fresh vegetables (cooked and raw, even if "convenient") and from eating lean protein with minimal additives (including fat and salt) than you do from eating pre-prepared frozen dinners or a burger and fries from McD's. My sister in law is a nutritionist, and I tend to think she would agree with me. But she would also tell you that portion size is equally important. Just because you cooked your own pasta does not mean that you can eat a pound of it every day, and doesn't mean you should not control how much fat, what kind of fat, and how much salt you add to it.

That's not to say I never eat fast food, just like I'd never even attempt to get away with telling anyone that I don't eat chocolate. It's just that I view fast food the same way I view chocolate (okay, well not really, chocolate is it's own special category), dessert and potato chips. It is to be eaten sparingly.

 

[Geoff_M]

The FDA itself investigates such claims and ensures there is scientific basis for such claims when they're made.

What the FDA allows are specific food claims, not general claims. For example "Contains 1/3 fewer calories than regular XXX" or "A diet rich in XXX has been shown to lower cholesterol" are examples of specific claims that can be verified and would be allowed by the FDA if proven. But claiming "Food A is better than Food B" is something that cannot be quantified. It's as provable as saying "It's better to live in Boston than it is to live in New York." Such a claim can't be definitively proven. Now, if you want to make the claim more specific and say "Based on median income, the cost of living, crime rate, and annual rainfall... it's better to live in XXX than YYY", then you have a claim that could be demonstrated.

Even when such food claims like the ones I mentioned above are proved, it doesn't make one food "better" than the other. Such information only serves to inform the customer about dietary choices. If my cholesterol is fine, XXX wouldn't offer me any advantages. If, based on the rest of my caloric intake, eating "regular" XXX wouldn't cause me to exceed my daily recommended intake, then it doesn't offer me anything. Having "less fat", "more fiber", etc. etc. etc. only matters when you look at your overall diet.

 

[bicker]

If, however, you mean to tell me that frozen TV dinners are nutritionally equal to a meal that you prepare yourself, then I can't say that I'm in agreement.

I compare what I would eat if I were preparing meals myself versus what I get from Lean Cuisine. Year and years of empirical data showed that pre-packaged meals were much, much healthier. With "real" food, I was several months from a fatal heart attack; with "processed" food I made it up to the healthiest top 10 percentile with regard to the most important health risk factors. It won't work out that way for everyone, but for a vast number of people it does; and research shows that for the vast majority of obese people (in other words, a majority of Americans), it is the case.

Perhaps in a different time the numbers would work out differently. I don't know about you, but I like my TiVo, I like posting on the DIS, I like all the trappings of the present day, so I'll protect my health by choosing foods that are better for me, healthier, and in many cases that will be pre-packaged, processed foods.

Food such as these usually have much more sodium, fat and sugars than unprocessed foods.

Sodium, perhaps, but not necessarily fat and sugars. And many of us don't have a problem with sodium.

My sister in law is a nutritionist, and I tend to think she would agree with me. But she would also tell you that portion size is equally important.

Yes, yes, yes! And that's why this isn't just a biochemical issue -- it's also a psychological issue. Pre-packaged foods are pre-portioned foods, and that makes a world of difference. It is basically the difference between me living a healthy life, and ballooning back up to 270+ pounds and dying.

 

[S. C.]

Did anyone watch the extra on the DVD with the fries that would not decompose? SCARY.