Super Sized Fast Food Phobia

I have photos of Ronald McDonald cozying up to Mr. Dunning. He's clearly in the pockets of Big Arches. Contact me for details!!!

vita10gy, Eau Claire, WI
February 19, 2008 8:53am

Okay, I still feel sick when I eat at a McDonalds. This is why I stopped many years ago. I noticed many problems with the "super size me" "study". All of which you pointed out.

I am not their biggest fan, but I will eat there every once in a while when my children have been good and they ask nicely.

Have a great day and keep up the debunking of wacky myths.

You didn't noodle into the Saturated Fat Fiasco yet.

Eat what you like unless it makes you feel bad, then DON'T eat it.

brad.tittle, bremerton
February 19, 2008 12:46pm

"Fast food isn't bad for you, but lots of fastfood is."

Of course, as for calories, you really shouldn't look at it as "calories per burger" but as "calories per meal". A Bigmac, Medium fries, medium shake and ketchup equals 1400 calories. 70% of the daily average. Add breakfast and you've overshot your daily average. Now, that's not a bad thing, but you shouldn't do it every day.

If you're hungry though, A quarterpounder, large fries and a large shake make 2045 calories. So if you want to average it out, you can't eat anything else that day.

It's better to eat a kilogram of brocolli then to eat a kilo of big macs, anyone with half a brain knows that. But big macs and fries aren't going to kill you, unless they're your main source of nutrition.

And then the problem is still not what's in the fastfood, it's what not in it. A slice of tomato and half a leaf of lettuce aren't going to cut it for your vitamin intake. You're lacking quite a bit of fiber in your diet as well, which you also need.

Actually, that's not all true. I've had the misfortune of working in a McD's for a few months. I don't know what they treat their food with, but mine never looks that good out left out of the fridge... Of course, i'm asuming the "Dozens of chemicals" things is just scaremongering.

For us metrics out there, 32 ounce = 1 liter. I wouldn't mind a liter of milkshake, it's the only tasty thing on the McD's menu.

Alcari, the Netherlands
February 19, 2008 2:07pm

Well, perhaps 850 calories for a hamburger is acceptable. But if you are on a 1200 calorie a day diet in order to keep your slim figure, that means you only have 350 calories left over for the rest of the day. A donut for breakfast just about covers it!

I just have a question. Did McDonald's contribute to your legal defense fund?

Mary T, SLC, UT
February 19, 2008 2:15pm

It took me years to figure it out, but fast food gives me diarrhea. It's a one to one correlation - I'm not counting the hits and ignoring the misses. To each their own, but fast food is out for me.

Anon., Maryland
February 19, 2008 2:27pm

Oh yeah debunk this Mr. Smarty-pants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBrshcS3SXs

Christopher, Lansing/MI
February 19, 2008 2:37pm

I know for many people consuming a 32 oz. milkshake is inconceivable, but I am an endurance bicyclist riding as much as 100 miles a day on weekends. For me, that milkshake has been a post-ride life saver.

I would heartily recommend them to any endurance athlete as post-exercise refueling :).

Mike, Denver, CO
February 19, 2008 3:25pm

There's a not-very-subtle element of old-fashioned snobbery in the whole McDonald's-bashing phenomenon. Morgan Spurlock didn't spend a month eating the biggest menu items at Wolfgang Puck's or the Tour d'Argent. And there's the incredibly patronizing assumption that "ordinary people" (i.e. not Morgan Spurlock) are so dumb and brainwashed they cannot resist a McDonald's cashier's mumbled "frieswithat?"

Cambias, Amherst, MA
February 20, 2008 6:16am

Although I agree with you for the most part (fast food is not an inherent evil), I do have some issues with your conclusions about calories.

First, please do not assume that all your listeners are male. A "slim 2200 calorie" diet for a male is actually a "route to fat-ville" for a female. Women typically need 1500-1800 calories per day, unless they are quite active.

Second, You claim that the large Deluxe Breakfast (1,140 cals) is not much more than "any average balanced breakfast" only seconds after saying that twice that is a healthy caloric intake for a day. Besides the lack of logical consistency (calling a breakfast "balanced" is essentially saying that it fits within a healthy lifestyle) a 1,140 calorie breakfast is anything but healthy! I just checked the caloric values of my typical breakfasts, and a balanced breakfast clocks in between 250 and 350 calories. I could eat four eggs, four pieces of toast, butter, and fruit for the amount of calories you claimed is average. By saying that the McD breakfast is essentially equal to breakfast you would eat at home you are misleading your listeners, especially the ones who are unfamiliar with calories and healthy eating.

I think you do a lot of good work on this podcast, debunking a lot of garbage. Please don't make misleading analogies and assume your readers are ignorant. It throws the rest of your conclusions into doubt.

Natasha, Lethbridge, AB, Canada
February 20, 2008 8:01am

Forget McDonuts. For lard arse inducing fast food look to Pizza Hut.

Peter, U.K.
February 20, 2008 8:30am

Brian, I think your characterization of Spurlock’s film is skewed. He seemed to be questioning fast food marketing more than its nutritional value. And there’s no doubt that a fast food meal containing a Big Mac, fries and sugary drink, is not as nutritional as a meal containing more vegetables and less fat. Spurlock did present some of his health problems in a less than scientific manner, but I don’t think this film was presented as a scientific study. And if he had continued his McDiet, his body would likely have adjusted and not continued his downward spiral.

If you don’t believe that the film had a positive effect on the fast food industry, then you are forgetting that after the film became successful, several major fast food companies began to offer more healthy choices on their menus and also began to scale back on the super size options, including McDonald’s. People who eat at McDonald’s are not necessarily dumb or easily manipulated, but aggressive marketing is effective. When encouraged, people often eat more fatty food that’s high in cholesterol, and they are putting their health at risk.

I don’t see this film or encouragement to eat better to be something worthy of high criticism. Eating unhealthy is just too easy to do and we need all the encouragement we can get to eat better. At worst, this film exaggerated the effects of eating an unhealthy diet. At best it reminded us that burgers, fries and shakes should be a treat and not our standard diet.

Mark, Huntsville, AL
February 20, 2008 11:14am

Hi!

I really liked your last episode. And I liked your reference to Fredrik Nyström since I once studied for him. But in a new study (where Nyström is involved) presented on 14/2-08, we can read;

"Subjects in the intervention group aimed for a body weight increase of 5-15% by eating at least two fast food-based meals a day with the goal to double the regular caloric intake in combination with adoption of a sedentary lifestyle for four weeks."

He (and his co-workers) found elevated liver enzymes indicating liver damage. However I still agree that this is an extreme way of life and an extreme diet, so I still agree with what you said in the episode.

The study can be read at;
http://gut.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/gut.2007.131797v1

Swedish skepdoc, Sweden
February 20, 2008 12:22pm

What about fries? The whole podcast I was waiting for you to mention the fried, starchy stuff that we down by the handful when we eat fast food. Maybe a hamburger is balanced and has some nutritional value, but a large McDonald's fries has 570 calories and 30 grams of fat, which is about the same values of each as the Big Mac. Plus, when a meal is supersized, it's the soda (which you mention as a calorie hole) and the fries that we get more of, not the burgers.

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html

David, Baltimore, MD
February 20, 2008 12:54pm

Brian:

I've been listening to your podcast for quite some time now, and though I usually enjoy it for both its insight and apt concision, there was one important point in this latest one that I thought you ought to have brought up, but which seemed to be utterly lacking.

Although it may be true that eating at a fast food joint a few times a week will not hurt you, fast food is something of a symbol of the gluttony that Americans display in their overall diet choices. That is, the reason so many people are overweight is not because they eat a Big Mac and fries; it's because they eat that for lunch, have a bag of Doritos for a snack, 7 or 8 servings of soda throughout the day, and fried ribs with mashed potatoes for dinner.

You see my point here - the problem is that McDonalds tends to appeal to those who do not make generally wise diet decisions in the rest of their lives. In this sense, a lot of fast food chains do perpetuate overeating and poor health.

I realize that your podcast was focused primarily on the movie "Supersize Me!" which was highly biased in its portrayal. Perhaps, since your aim was to debunk the specific claims made by that film, you chose not to make reference to the larger factors involved. Still, I think that a statement like "So eat up, and I'll see you at the drive-thru," is too far-reaching in its conclusiveness.

For contrast to "Supersize Me!" I would recommend reading the book "Fast Food Nation," which is much more even-handed and wide-sweeping.

Brandon T. Bisceglia, Stratford, CT
February 20, 2008 1:00pm

You guys are getting into philosophy and personal choices, and I don't think that's really what this podcast is about.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
February 20, 2008 1:30pm

I see you have new corporate paymasters. I hope they are paying you well. ;)

But seriously, thanks for this overview. I found it very interesting. I saw the movie years ago when it was shown at my university campus, and as I think back I realize with some distress how uncritically I accepted that movie. It's far too easy to get sucked into the trendy anti-corporate attitude, and for no good reason.

Peter Murawski, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
February 21, 2008 2:17pm

They pay me in cheeseburgers. I'm a sucker for that.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 21, 2008 2:23pm

Yup - did the diet.
Yup - lost weight.
And yup - it was no better experimentally that Spurlocks. (See homepage.mac.com/lsayer/mcles)
I thought I would bore you with a few minor items that stood out as I read your article: Spurlock super-sized only 9 times. He was asked if he wanted his meal super-sized only 10 percent of the time. The other point was that you claim McDonald's are in the process of switching to trans-fat-free oil. From where did you hear this? It's news to me.
Another thing is that I thought this item sounded less skeptical and more anti-Spurlock. Me? I'm anti-Spurlock. But I know you're better than that.

Leslie Sayer, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
February 21, 2008 4:37pm

I'm a big fan of Skeptoid, and listen to every podcast. Generaly, Brian, I find you very well spoken, and your content is highly researched. But there was one thing on this podcast that caught my attention. You said that the McDonald's big breakfast is about 1000 calories or there abouts. You then said this isn't much more than a typical "balanced" breakfast.

Now, I dont know what kind of breakfasts you eat in the US of A, but where I'm from, 1000 calories would represent and ENORMOUS breakfast.What does this "balanced" breakfast in the States consist of, exactly? I would call a "balanced breakfast" a boul of muesli with skim milk - about 300 calories. Or, every second weekend, 2 eggs and whole meal toast and a glass of OJ - weighing in at maybe 500 calories? I dont think I could even stomach a 1000+ calorie breakfast.

Chris Doms, Tauranga, New Zealand
February 21, 2008 4:40pm

As I understand it, the super size part of a meal really refers to the fries and soft drinks. Neither of which you factor into your calorie calculations. 570 calories for a large fry and 310 for a large (32 oz) Coke. Neither of which offer significant nutrition of anything.

Was that intentional or overlooked?

Paul

Paul, screwtheman.com
February 22, 2008 8:03am

It is not relevant. Spurlock's daily intake was 5000 calories, doesn't really matter where they came from. In Nyström's test he actually INSURED that most of the calories come from the sources you describe.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 22, 2008 8:11am

No, according to your text, Nyström made sure the calories came from saturated fats. Soft drinks and fries are not sources of saturated fats. I'm not a nutritionist (or pro-Spurlock FWIW) but I think logically that calories from solid food containing saturated fats have other nutritional contributions as opposed to what is basically 1000 calories of pure sugar and UNsaturated fat.

I agree with your point- eat a little bit of everything instead of a lot of one thing, and you'll be OK.

I went vegetarian over 6 months ago. Since then, I've had a couple of incidents where I accidentally consumed small portions of beef broth. It worked me over pretty good for the 24 hours that followed. If Spurlock was vegan or vegetarian (I honestly don't remember) then I could see where there would be other effects aside from weight gain.

Paul, screwtheman.com
February 22, 2008 7:45pm

As Ron White jokes in his stand-up routine, if your system is kicking back *small portions of beef broth*, are you really that healthy? ;) I'll pass on any diet that makes me sick for 24 hours from accidental beef broth ingestion.

The only issue I would raise about this episode is using the WHO as an authority. Everyone knows they are corporate stooges of the secret reptilian shadow government!

Kerry Maxwell, Arlington, MA
February 23, 2008 2:02pm

I just wanted to say what a great article that was. As usual you have made me think skeptically about an idea, in this case being fast food. I remember when the movie supersize me came out and all of a sudden everyone who watched it wanted to stop eating fast food. It's good that you made this report so I can refer them to this podcast.

On a side note. I am disturbed to see everyone writing in about there personal feelings and diets. If you're on a 1200 calorie diet then you can't eat out at a fast food restaurant any more then then a vegetarian could.

If you look at it from that angle then why didn't you mention how many calories my dad who is 7"3' has to consume or my mom who is 4"9' (I know it's weird).

Thanks for making skeptical on the factual information from that movie. Although I initial had my doubts I'm happy to see someone else who didn't trust that movie as some of it's ideas were pretty far fetched.

Ilan, Winnipeg, Canada
February 23, 2008 9:15pm

Excellent, I'm going over to McDonalds for a veggie burger! :)

Honestly, it's very nice to get a bit of balanced information. However - does a diet containing at least one fast food meal a day (and as I hear, there are people actually living on at least one a day) also provide you with things like vitamins and fibers? Or are those not nutritionally essential but only optional for those wanting to walk the extra mile?

(Oh, and I've been a vegetarian for 12 of my 21 years - and on the occassions that I've mistakingly eaten meat or fish, I didn't experience any negative side effects. Except for the "ew" factor.)

Anna, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
February 24, 2008 4:03am

Vitamins.

Well, most of the vitamins and minerals you need come don't come from diner anyway. Vegetables are an important source of minerals such as iron, magnesium and potassium, but you get plenty of those anyway. You usually get enough fiber from lunch and breakfast, asuming you eat bread of cereal. Eating a single orange gives more vitamins then having an average meal, any meal.

*hops on bandwagon*
I've also been a vegetarian for about 10 years, and I can agree with Anna on not noticing anything.

As a side note, I would suggest everyone order veggie burgers from McDonalds, as they're about the only thing not allready under the heatlamp for an hour ;)

Alcari, the Netherlands
February 24, 2008 3:04pm

I have eaten fast food every day for the last 3 years. Well, maybe not every day. I sometimes order a pizza. The only time I gained weight is when I sat in my room and watched movies for a semester.

Of course I usually only eat one "meal" a day and thats the perfect overly nutritious diet that I want and fast food provides (I'm a poor college student). Of course I snack on stuff the rest of the time.

I thoroughly enjoyed your article about it, since it pretty much sums up what goes on, you eat too much and its not good for your health.

Jim, Hilo, Hawaii
February 25, 2008 1:41am

The media has given Americans a mass eating disorder. I've had overweight friends who went on low-fat diets and compensated by overeating carbs. Then the low-carb thing came into play, and everyone was overloading on protein and not getting enough carbs. I've said it time and time again, the best way to eat is to eat reasonable portions, eat fruits, vegetables, meat, and carbs. Stay active and don't eat like a pig. What irritates me the most is that these pigs have the gall to blame fast food for their inability to control themselves. Don't eat it all the time stupid! Don't eat until you're stuffed!

Steve Benson, Modesto, CA
February 27, 2008 12:25am

Well, Americans are the fattest people in the world. Of course, it would be stupid to blame that on fast-food, you can find that everywhere. If there's a problem with people, 9 times out 10, the problem lies with people

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png

Alcari, the Netherlands
February 28, 2008 8:29am

Man, I really hate the BMI measurement. But that is way off topic so I will just leave it at that.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
February 28, 2008 2:42pm

if the was ever a episod you'd get critisisum for it's this one. i think even befor you made this one you knew there were more then a few people who would say you were just working for your pay masters.

celestial-salamander, Australia
February 28, 2008 9:36pm

I don't agree with Steve that the media promotes fast food. I think Super Size Me much better represents the majority of noise in the media. The media loves such sensationalism and always loves to promote alternatives to the mainstream no matter what they are.

Rob Summers, Santa Barbara, CA
March 04, 2008 9:57am

Brian- I wish you would post your references. I realize this does take time but the only way to really discuss this issue seriously is to discuss the actual studies undertaken. For example, I found only one study by F. Nystrom dealing with fast food diets (in the journal Gut, advanced online publication for Feb 14, 2008) and what they conclude (you get this even by reading the title) is that, contrary to what you state, excessive fast food ingestion coupled with a sedentary diet "can induce profound ALT elevations in less than 4 weeks". In other words, possible liver damage!

Did you cherry pick your facts?

Claudio Latorre, Santiago, Chile
March 12, 2008 5:50pm

I have to agree with previous comments. I found missing out ANY nutritional information about McDonalds fries to be a glaring hole in your reasoning and appraisal of the situation.
Not many people go to Mickey D's and eat ONLY a burger or big-mac. Fries are part of the meal "picture" of eating at McDonalds (or most fast food outlets for that matter) and I feel should have been included for clarity's sake. The addition of fries would substantially change the nutritional make-up of a meal and so also change your calorific conclusions (for the worse).
Overall another good podcast that could have been great. I hope that your desire to discredit Spurlock and his film didn't force you too far in the other direction and make you too pro-McDonalds.
Personally I sit in the middle, both Spurlock and McDees are wrong (in different ways of course).

Paul Smith, York, UK.
March 20, 2008 6:36am

I once again have to disagree with you, my mother was a nutritionist for 15 years and we actually had VIALS of the fat, sodium, cholestoral and trans fat content of EVERY type of hamburger/cheeseburger (even big macs and such), along with the fries, salads and etc. They were disgusting, granted they were fake and just for showing how bad the food is for you, it still shows that fast food is bad for you. And yet a balanced meal does not mean one with a cheeseburger in each hand. Have you seen the food pyramid lalely? You need certain amounts of fruits, vegetables, dairy and such every single day, to remain healthy. So yes, eating a big mac with "only" 740 calories in it 3 times a day IS bad for you! And another thing, please reference WHO paid for the studies of fast food to be done.

Stephanie Hunt, Michigan
April 15, 2008 6:40pm

Stop beating up the fast food chains. Blame the people that eat it and keep them in business. Perhaps poor nutritional education is to blame. Thin out the herd. Let people eat it and get fat and die.

Ross, Connecticut
April 20, 2008 4:28pm

Claudio says,
"contrary to what you state, excessive fast food ingestion coupled with a sedentary diet "can induce profound ALT elevations in less than 4 weeks"."

but thats what was said, the producer of "Supersize Me" ate way more than an average person would and the only excercise he got was his jaw and his wallet.
About the same time as the movie came out, mens health had an article where the author ate only McDonalds and lost weight.

Paul Confer, Denver
April 29, 2008 9:00am

the calorie requirements you are talking about are for men not women. Many woman who are sedentary (do not work out) should not be consuming more than 1,600 calories a day. Over 1,000 calories for a breakfast is going to fill that requirement pretty fast. I wouldn't say that a 1,000 calorie breakfast is "average" or balanced either. A "slim" 2,200 calories a day isn't going to keep many women slim at all. I realize you were talking about men in this article (I think) but I think it should be clarified that men and women have different calorie requirements.

Also, who orders just a big mac? you also get fries and a drink. those large sodas pack in almost as many calories as the big macs. On the other hand meals from places like TGI Fridays are much much worse than a big mac dinner. I don't think McDonald's should be the only restaurant targeted as unhealthy. Too many people think "fast food is unhealthy!" then gobble down a huge pasta dinner at macaroni grill that was probably worse than 2 big macs put together.

Liz, New York
May 09, 2008 8:46am

What people dont realize is that almost 750 calories in one burger is almost half your calories per day. 2000 calories per day is for an active adult. If you are not active, then you may only need 1500 or even just 1000. so that one burger for someone who is not active what so ever could be their meal for the entire day.
why not go get some fruits and vegetables? eat all you want without the calories or fats and sodium.
or just go to the gym.
this article is stupid and you should not encourage people to gorge on fast food.

Carmela, Sonoma County
May 09, 2008 1:42pm

I can't figure out how you found four food groups in a hamburger. Also, Americans in general tend not to get enough fiber or antioxidants, neither of which can be found in significant quantities in a hamburger. If you look at the health differences between people who live on fast food and people who eat fresh, unadulterated food, it becomes apparent that a fast food diet is unhealthy.

To "Ross" did you know that there are armies of people who spend their careers working on how to manipulate people into eating fast food? Did you know that in many neighborhoods there are several fast food joints on each block and no grocery stores? Education doesn't help when people don't have access to the right foods.

Amy Miller, Philadelphia
May 09, 2008 2:46pm

This article is horribly misleading.
Natural trans fats are NOT the same as industrial trans fats. Found in small quantities in true ruminants, the good trans fats include conjugated linoleic acid and have been proven to lower LDL, triglycerides, and improve insulin sensitivity. The same cannot be said about industrial trans fats. I think we all know the margarine story.

I won't go into the benefits of eating grassfed beef, but if you're eating commercial grainfed beef then you'll definitely need to limit this consumption in order to protect the omega-3/omega-6 balance.

All food is NOT the same as this article suggests. It's this kind of thinking that has gotten the US into the health crisis that it is in.

- -Barrett

Barrett, Cincinnati
May 09, 2008 7:27pm

My brief statement admittedly does not display the best use of logic:

If you think that a person can eat healthy by eating fast food, then you are a fucking moron. If you think that losing weight is necessarily a sign of improvement in health, then you, sir, are fucking moronic ignoramous. I'm sick of you dumbshits writing about health when you don't know a damn thing.

Seth, Philadelphia, PA
May 10, 2008 2:36pm

Your article has a serious set of flaws.

It looks at several studies, done under correct procedure, rather than one feel good docudrama designed to make some folks feel superior to others.

Since most education of the past 40 years has been aimed at feel-good self esteem based on snide superiority, your essay is guaranteed to offend most of those under 40.

Second, by refusing to jump on the all or nothing liberal Nanny State bandwagon of forcing one's personal choices on others, you offend many of your poor readers yet again...

Most of them are sure , due to their extensive time in the feel-good educational asylums of today, that only by forcing others to comply with your own preferences can you ever achieve happiness.

Intelligence and the scientific method have cursed your work- have you considered adding numerous hours of TV watching to your time in order to fit in and mitigate the effects of these twin curses ?

CSI- any of them - would be a great aid....

Kit, Tulsa, Ok
May 10, 2008 3:20pm

I've not eaten a single fast food item in over 5 years, and my health is great. I was once very over weight even though I was a very active teenager. Cutting out things like fast food and other "not good for you" things, along with maintaining an active life has cut my weight in more than half. I don't suggest ANYONE make a diet out of fast food. One of my closest friends died IN A HARDEE'S of a heart attack at only 20 years old, obviously fast food being a daily staple in his life. That was enough of a wake up call for me, thanks.

Jayme, Alton, Illinois
May 10, 2008 4:51pm

WE LOVE FAST FOOD SPECIALLY MCDONALDS AND KEBABS WE ARE IN SCHOOL THINKING OF A LOVELY BIG MAC MEAL ....
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

mouth watering : )

casey and kelly and kc, wales
May 13, 2008 2:36am

Seth, perhaps you could try to make a point without swearing and sounding like someone so verbally challenged that you can't make a point without cursing.

I think the main point that everyone is forgetting is portion control. The fast food is not inherently worse for you than any home cooking. It is only when people eat too much that they endanger their health. Eating fast food every day is no worse than eating home cooked meals laced with fat and cholesterol.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 18, 2008 7:52pm

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this article and not all people from Philadelphia are caustic like Seth. I love the "you sir" that was in there too, Keith Olbermann should sue Seth for plagiarism.

Mike, Philadelphia
May 19, 2008 5:43pm

Where does it say that all people are created equally? We aren’t all created equally. Some of us have allergies. Some of us are telling. Some people have a body temperate of 98.6 degrees and that is normal where others have a body temperature of 98.9. Does this mean that there is something wrong with those people? No it doesn’t.

What’s my point? There are some people that can eat McDonald’s there whole life and not feel any reproductions from it. Those people may work out on a regular basis. May take the proper vitamins, may have the proper genes. Who knows but they can probably survive on McDonald’s alone.

There are also people who can die from fast food like Jayme’s friend, although I highly doubt that fast food killed a 20 year old. More than likely the combination of fast food and potentially a bad heart and lack of exercise or any sort of extracurricular active did your friend in. People don’t have heart attacks from fast food at the age of 20 without some other underlining condition.

I have a friend myself who found himself in the hospital a few years back for a full year. They never concluded what the problem was however my friend got it in his head that it was fast food and now every time he sees me eating fast food he gives me a long speech on how it could kill me. My friend was a very obese man before the hospital visit partially because of fast food but because he never did anything. Yet to him it was fast food that almost killed him.

Ilan, Winnipeg, MB
May 19, 2008 11:30pm

yeah, well, i eat fast-food and i eat home-made meals so good for me =)

Natasha, Florida
May 25, 2008 9:36am

(part 1 of 2)

Hi Brian!

I'm patiently listening to all of your episodes, and i've just finished #88. Unlike practically all of the previous, i found this one to be rather dissapointing, and perhaps revealling: you see, i do know a little bit about nutrition, and i found a couple of sentences in your podcast less correct than i hoped for.

Don't get me wrong: you are doing an excellent service debunking myths and stupid things people believe, and you couldn't find a more feroucious enemy of "psychics", fundamentalists and alternative "medicine" this side of the atlantic, but still, here's my beef (pun intended) with this program:

You said:

"He averaged 5,000 calories a day, and when you consider that a Big Mac contains only 510 calories, you know that he was really packing it in."

This sentence may be misleading, for it can make people think he was eating 10 Big Macs a day, ignoring all the rest of the food he ate (fries, sodas, shakes, etc).

"He super-sized every meal that was offered, which was almost all of them."

Really? I was under the impression it was a minority of the meals... does anyone have the dvd at hand to confirm this?

"Spurlock's results were only presented in his movie. No actual data was published or subjected to any scrutiny or peer review. (...)
This is a Hollywood entertainment, it's not valid scientific data."

So is Penn & Teller's Bullshit, and still we accept it (but yes, they admit that it is not science).

Pedro Costa, Madrid, Spain
June 03, 2008 4:08pm

(part 2 of 2)
"A hamburger is actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient."

You have *got* to be kidding me. Sure, it has most amino acids (proteins), but it has saturated fat and cholesterol, from meat and cheese. It has carbohydrates on the bread, yeah, but almost no fiber (white bread = low fiber). It has iron, sure (after all it is meat), and calcium (from cheese), but hardly any vitamins (the tomato and lettuce slices aren't much to show, are they?). And it has a great amount of salt. It probably has good amounts of vitamins E (present everywhere), D (which you can get plenty from the sun, by synthesizing) and B12. That said, where are the following essential nutrients?

* Vitamin A
* Vitamin C
* Vitamin B6
* Zinc
* Fiber

And as mentioned by others here, i cannot understand this:

"The large Deluxe Breakfast delivers 1,140 calories. This may sound like a lot, but in fact it's not really much more than any average balanced breakfast."

If i may ask, *what* do you eat for breakfast? You see, 1140 calories are more that 50% of the "normal" intake (2000 calories) for a male adult at least where i live. Surely one of the day's 4 meals shouldn't take more than 50% of it, should it? I know breakfast is *really* important, but man, that is too much!

All the best for skeptoid, and don't worry - this, shall we say, not-so-fresh apple in the bucket will not let me throw out the rest; skeptoid kicks ass and i love it!

Pedro Costa, Madrid, Spain
June 06, 2008 7:20am

Wow, I hope no one is actually dumb enough to believe any of this garbage. Obviously you lack any real knowledge about diet and nutrition. Calorie intake is not the end all of health.

BTW 30 days doesnt really mean much. Why dont you eat primarily fast food for about a year and then get back to us and let us know how you are doing?

Mike, Bakersfield, Ca
June 14, 2008 1:07pm

Supersize me is entertainment, not science. As a weight loss surgeon, we see a lot of obesity - all from overeating - whether it be McD's or all organic food. His claims of increased liver enzymes are unlikely to be from fast food - and more likely from some passing viral illness. No doubt Spurlock was convinced by his Vegan chef girlfriend about the evils of fast food - and would have been better to be skeptical of what she had been feeding him.

Terry Simpson MD, Phoenix
June 20, 2008 7:23am

I have always found it interesting that many people havent relised that if you eat it you have to burn it off somehow. This means (for those who can do some math) [which should be everyone] <i hope> if your bodies dialy average calloric usage is say somewhere near 2000 callories with no additional psyical exertion than you should limit yourself to that. but if you find yourself eating about 2500 you need to find a constuctive way to burn those extra 500. 30 min on an exercise bike should help. Its your average persons inability to manage their calories that is causing many of their own problems. As for overwieght children i place the blame soley on their parents....seeing that the average youngsters math skills might not be up to par.

Tommy, Cleveland, OH
June 29, 2008 2:51pm

I agree with everything the first poster said. But aside from the skewed hypothesized amounts of calories and nutrition that is presented, everyone seems to be ignoring the quality of the ingredients in fast food. Most fast food has a list of chemical additives that no one could make sense of. All the food is highly processed and is of very poor quality. It's all the things that aren't being talked about that are bad for you: like "flavor enhancers" AKA "excitotoxins" AKA "MSG." These unhealthy chemicals are in so many processed foods. I'm not a health freak, but if I wanted to live a long disease-free life I'd stay away from the fryer, the processed red meat, and fried simple carbohydrates. It's called junk food for a very valid reason.

Tyson, Denver, CO
June 30, 2008 5:16pm

The problem I have with McDonald's food in particular (which is much less a problem with other roughly equivalent fast food joints, oddly) is that it just never leaves me feeling "full". I can (and have) eaten far too much at McDonald's; I feel "sick" before I ever get to "full".

In any case, as mentioned above: there's a bit more to nutrition than the simple caloric equation. That's important, but if your body is not getting the right nutrients to work with then it can not function properly. While there is indeed a bit of nutritional content at McD's, most of it is "empty calories".

In any case, I do enjoy going to fast food joints on occasion. I do value convenience, and I can fit it in nutritionally, and if it means I eat again three hours later instead of four, so be it. But, more than once a day is just plain gross.

Tom Dibble, Sacramento, CA
June 30, 2008 5:42pm

I have to pass by a supermarket, a health food store and a Subway on the way to McDonald's in my town. It all comes down to my choice if I want to eat healthy or not. Nobody from McDonald's is directing traffic into their parking lot.

Mike, Chatham, ON. Canada
June 30, 2008 9:58pm

Tyson - Can you tell me more about the "processing" done to fast food meat? The only processing I knew of was freezing and cooking, but you seem to know more about it. Sounds pretty dangerous. Thanks.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
July 01, 2008 7:39am

This is a wonderful episode.

Daily caloric intake varies depending on your size and lifestyle: http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/logout/calorie_intake.htm

As for nutrition... does everyone really think you get more out of a piece of toast and half an apple?

So what if there are artificial chemicals in fast food, that doesn't mean they're evil. Vitamin pills are artificial, and asbestos is natural.
We need a show on "Artificial Vs Natural" please.

Joe Garavito, Monterrey, Mexico
July 04, 2008 4:21pm

I got a definition of artifical vs. natural for you. Are you ready? Natural is food we evolved eating, or food that passed the test of time. Artificial is food that's foreign to our bodies, regardless whether it occurs in nature or not. Vitamin pills are covered in Skeptoid #103.

Did you hear that Mexico has become the second fattest country in the world?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/117/story/31267.html

"'Mexico has probably had the most rapid increase of obesity in the last 15 years.'"
"The consumption of soft drinks increased 60 percent in Mexico over the last 14 years, according to the government's National Institute of Public Health."
"In some areas of the country, it's easier to get a soft drink than a clean glass of water."

Geez, sell them bottled water instead of caffeinated ultrasweetened artificially flavored carbonated water.

Max, Boston, MA
July 05, 2008 5:43pm

Well, while I do think the lack of information about how soft drink and fries come into play is a rather glaring omission, I have to say that this made me feel rather good about my situation. I rarely eat a full mean at fast food places these days. I usually stop in for a burger when I'm craving one. It's good to know that as long as I eat the right things the rest of the day that that burger isn't hurting me. I like my burgers!

Dave, Tucson, AZ
July 08, 2008 11:45am

I just listened to the episode, (weeks late, I know) and read the comment. Many people have already raised some of the points I felt compelled to mention, but overall I feel that this episode feels one of the weakest of Brian's I have listened to. Nothing wrong in pointing out the movie is not scientific nor that fast food is not evil (my wife teaches food & studied nutrition & we eat fast week on a regular basis - mostly pizza but occasionally burgers /McDonalds)

It does however contains possible factual errors, (i.e. most of his meals were not actually super-sized) but over all it feels somewhat defensive in that it did not directly address the 'supersizing' that lead to the name of the movie. McDonalds super-sizing was about adding more cheap to produce product (fries & 'soda') to a customers order to increase perceived value but adds large amounts of fat & sugar to a meal that would otherwise be not too bad. That was my personal take-away impression from the movie; I thought his health complaints were pathetic given anyway radically changing diet would have issue; me switching to Vegan for a month would depress me!

One other request; you have an international audience & talking about 32 oz is very confusing for non-Americans - I had to look that up (~1 litre) even though I understand Cals (though kJ's are mostly used here) so could you add say the metric version as an aside in future podcasts?

Grant, Auckland, New Zealand
August 12, 2008 6:47pm

"The large Deluxe Breakfast delivers 1,140 calories. This may sound like a lot, but in fact it's not really much more than any average balanced breakfast."
That's more than twice the calories I eat at breakfast.....

Sarah Powell, Sebastopol, Ca
August 16, 2008 7:21pm

What strikes me are the large 32-ounce (1 liter) 300-Calorie soft drinks with over 80 grams (5 tablespoons!) of sugar. Who the hell drinks that much?

Max, Boston, MA
August 16, 2008 8:03pm

Yes it's not going to kill you but I wish the PR department at McD would stop pretending their food is the healthiest thing since celery.

Jon, Canberra
August 20, 2008 12:57am

I saw an interesting video on youtube called 4 year old burger.

Author and Obesity Activist Julia Havey has been aging a McDonalds cheeseburger for 4 years.

It has shown that the burger is perfectly preserved (well almost perfect) but it doesnt have any mold

as goes with the fries. the fries are the same color and texture. but they are 4 years old.

when she compares it to a real potato at 3 months old, the potatoes have mold and are mostly decomposed.

basically she is showing on how McD's doesnt decompose.. so something must be wrong with the food.. if is real food.

it was an interesting video and i think others should watch it. im going to try it out myself and see what will happen to the burger.

here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI

dont care, CA
September 28, 2008 3:23pm

Those of us that get a hanker-in for a whopper Burger should note the subtilties of its make up to make you feel warm and fuzzy.
As well as the large calorie intake ,there are ingredients that focus on the taste buds ie: Dill Pickle and Cheese infused with Vegemite(Aust made), then there is the Tangy Salad Dressing.
All these despite the meat and salad onion etc will make an endorphine in the brain feel really good and slowly becomes adamant that it has have a regular fix
Hence the regular eating of double meat burgers become a must have habit, especially if the store is local to where one lives.
Many give in if they a time poor or just bone lazy to cook a meal

Allan, Brisbane/Australia
October 01, 2008 11:23pm

Super-Size Me is just more propaganda scare tactics used to earn a dollar by frightening the American public with it's shock value. When I was in college for two years earning my Associates Degree I ate EVERY meal for two years...and I stress EVERY (literally every meal)...from a fast-food place like McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Domino's, and a few others. McDonald's was the most frequented fast-food establishment due to my limited finances being a struggling college student. I ate between 2-5 meals per day from a fast food restaurant and would estimate that I routinely consumed 2500-6000 calories per day...always over the 2000 calorie recommended diet. I was 28-30 years old during this time. I did gain about 20 pounds during those two years, and my blood pressure also slightly increased from a healthy 120/80 to about 130/90...but other than that I suffered no ill effects. My liver wasn't giving out, I wasn't ever depressed, I never had any psychological problems, and never had sexual function problems. I definitely didn't feel my best, but I think that if my busy school schedule didn't take away from my usually active lifestyle, that I probably wouldn't have experienced the weight gain and associative increase in blood pressure. During my college years I wasn't able to afford my gym membership anymore, and rarely had time for my usual activities like basketball, golf, and cycling.

Keith, Phoenix, AZ
October 04, 2008 6:45am

I think the american public should be scared!!

we are the FATTEST country in the world and studies have shown that 96% of us will die from disease!!

that number is way too high.. we shouldnt be encouraging children to have an unhealthy diet and tell them that its OK to eat fatty, processed foods.

one burger every once and awhile is OKAY.. but some people are eating this stuff every other day! If your health is important to you, you gotta wake up and realize what you are putting in your mouth!!

N/A, NY
October 18, 2008 9:44am

4% of 300,000,00 is 12,000,000.
Are these people killed by accident, or are they immortal?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain Australia
October 18, 2008 3:47pm

no it was just a study to show on how so many people are getting sick now a days..

im not saying all of the diseases are related to food, but it is true that so many of us are over weight and it can result in high blood pressure, diabetes, joint pain and can put stress on the heart.

N/A, NY
October 18, 2008 4:50pm

That statistic is so broad that it is meaningless.
What kind of disease are we talking about? Is it Diabetes related? How about hepetitis, pneumonia, herpes or whatever.

Cancer is a disease, so alcoholism and everything else that you can think of.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, ca
October 22, 2008 7:24pm

im not saying all of the diseases are related to food, but it is true that so many of us are over weight and it can result in high blood pressure, diabetes, joint pain and can put stress on the heart.

N/A, NY
October 31, 2008 12:03am

But, N/A since you are making that assertion on a thread about Fast Food, it kind of makes me suspicious of your intentions.

The reason Americans are over weight is not just because of our dies. That is a contributing factor to it, but not the only one. Fact of the matter is that Adults are not as active as we were a generation earlier. We spend more time indoors than we did before. That is one of advantages of not having to go out and hunt our own food. Sure, we'd be thinner, but we would also die sooner because of all the stress we put on our bodies. Our bodies are designed to handle fluctuations in weight.

Now, if we all had a 15 minutes interval per day, were all we did was just exercise, our healths would improve. That is true no matter what other thing we try to do in our lives. You can eat a scientifically balanced diet of all the right things in the right portions and be babbied for the rest of your life about nutrition and you will still gain weight if you do not exercise.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 31, 2008 6:38am

I agree with you that exercise is another reason for weight gain in americans and is the reason for other problems.. but the fact of the matter is that even if you are exercising, if you eat foods that are as crappy as a Mc'D's burger, your body isnt benifiting from it.

Food is what gives our bodies energy, its what helps the body do what it need to do. Thats why scientists are saying that we need to be taking in more nutrients and antioxidents. These things are what helps the body work properly and be able to function well.

So yes exercise has a lot to do with health but food is important too and that is what this thread is all about is food.

N/A, NY
October 31, 2008 1:50pm

You know, I do not get this hatred of McDonald's that seems to be in vogue these days. Sorry, but bad nutrition is still better than no nutrition.

A McDonalds hamburger has 510 calories, and if you food pyramid, 2 serving of bread, 1 meat, 2 vegetable servings (yes the slice of lettuce, tomato and onions count as 2 servings) and if you order cheese with it, a serving of dairy. It is about the most balanced meal you can get. All you need to do is eat a fruit cup and you have 2 servings of fruit along with.

Heck, it may not be the best diet in the world, but if you eat 3 McDonalds cheeseburgers and 2 medium sized apples in a day, you will hit all of the daily food allowences.

Sorry to get off topic once again, but it is more exercise that we need and not a prohibition on McDonalds to fix America's weight problem.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 31, 2008 7:39pm

Excellent article.

Like my grandmother used to say, "Everything in moderation."

Clear points to be taken - watch the empty calories in the DRINKS - and stay away from the shakes.

Thanks for a good read.

best regards

mqqn

Andy Moon, Mapleton Illinois
November 16, 2008 5:14pm

Spurlock initiated a dialog with his movie, and a risk-averse corporate culture sought to close that down by taking strategic, mitigating action to preserve profits - hardly a damnable action, but predictably effective. Their job after all is to sell food as cheaply and widely as possible. That's it.

Bottom line is we buy ooey, gooey, cheesy, salty, sugary, fatty, doughy comfort foot rather than salads, raw vegetables and overall generally healthier fare. So McDonalds loses money by doing the right thing.

But somewhere, somehow there has to be a limit to what a company can do to take advantage of the weaknesses of consumers. Otherwise they're no different than a drug dealer. Seriously, if nicotine in french fries sold more french fries what would stop fast food sellers from doing it?

Accountability. Dialog. A conversation with consumers, the media and the government. This article is just part of it ... and a reasonably well thought-out part of it. I'd rather have the Spurlocks of this world initiate this dialog than too many regulations keeping companies in check.

So it's all good by me...

Knute, Los Angeles
November 30, 2008 6:39am

Knute, Los Angeles said:
"But somewhere, somehow there has to be a limit to what a company can do to take advantage of the weaknesses of consumers. Otherwise they're no different than a drug dealer. Seriously, if nicotine in french fries sold more french fries what would stop fast food sellers from doing it?"

1: Ethics. It is not really ethical to lie and cheat when it comes selling food. McDonald's makes enough money that they do not need to put any sort of addictive additives in their stuff.

2: Against the law. If they put nicotine into their fries, the Government will be on their case. If they tried to have the law changed to suit what they wanted, then that is a conspiracy. That is something the federal government does not allow.

3: Lawsuits. If there were nicotine in the fries, do you know how many advocacy groups would file a lawsuit against McDonald's? I know of at least 20 that would.

4: Negative publicity: if this thing ever gets found out, how long do you think it would take for their main competitors to start the smear campaigns? "Our fries do not have any harmful additives, unlike some other places we could name!"

Guess what: McDonald's is not losing money on their healthy products. If anything, they are gaining money from it. Their profits have been going up since Spurlock made his movie.

Finally, the cheeseburger itself is fairly healthy; 510 calories. it is just as healthy as the one you can make at home. Do not drink the soda and you will be fine.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
November 30, 2008 7:01am

Spurlock included a spurious comparison in the film when he put hamburgers and chips in jars to see which rotted soonest. He reckoned the fries were bad because they didn't deteriorate, while all the burgers turned into fungus factories. However, he touched each of the burgers with his own hands putting them in the jars, and the only clearly untouched item was the McD fries, which would have been scooped into a cardboard container and then were dumped in the jar. They didn't rot because Spurlock didn't touch them with his grimy hands. Not sure how he got away with this very illogical comparison, either.

H Langtry, Winnipeg, MB
November 30, 2008 9:55am

Ahh, okay, now I see where the "double quarter pounder with cheese, large fries, and DIET coke" mentality comes from. Yes, fast food is unhealthy because of the drinks.

bastardface, San Diego
November 30, 2008 10:39am

I tend to stay away from fast food as a cross-country runner, but every once in awhile I indulge myself. Hell, I've even ran a race after a McDonalds breakfast one time. I didn't cramp up more than usual or have any problems. What I didn't see in your article was your opinion of McDonald's fries. I've heard they are pretty notorious for being unhealthy. Sure eating one hamburger at McDonald's isn't bad, but if you have ever gone you'll see everyone with 2 cheeseburgers a large fry and a drink. Which kicks the calories sky high. Which brings us back to American's just need to exercise.

Josh Adams, Missouri
November 30, 2008 10:40am

This whole article lacks citation of sources, so it's as bad as Morgans documentary.

You're basing your whole premise around that everyone will develop the same symptoms at the same time after gaining a higher body fat.

"The large Deluxe Breakfast delivers 1,140 calories. This may sound like a lot, but in fact it's not really much more than any average balanced breakfast."
~1200 a balanced diet? Are leaving about 600kcal for the rest of the day if your activity factor isn't 1.5 from working in construction or something.

Sebastian, Sweden
November 30, 2008 11:23am

I agree with Sebastian. You make this article complaining of the lack unbiased scientific sources and no citation of sources in Morgans documentary, then proceed to do the exact same thing he did. It nullifies any point you are trying to make.

Also it seems you wanted to pass this off as an objective analysis of fast food in general, as you constantly generalize using the term 'fast food', when it is so painfully obvious you only wanted to talk about McDonalds and Morgan Spurlocks movie.
Considering you did not include any data from any other fast food places whatsoever, one might question your real motives behind this article.

"Their biggest burger, the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, contains 740 calories. Three of those a day, which is more than anyone reasonably eats, still amounts to a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult."

"McDonald's poster child of evil, the Big Mac, delivers 1040mg of sodium, about 2/3 of your daily ideal. Not a problem by itself, but don't eat three of them."

So, it's ok to eat 3 of their largest burger, but not 3 of their Big Mac, which is smaller?

Joe, Milwaukee
November 30, 2008 12:27pm

Brian, are you trying to justify your unhealthy lifestyle with this article?

You don't need to be a scientist to know that fast food is bad for you. Anything processed is bad for you. That being said, i'm sure if you eat the occassional fast food burger, you're not going to get liver disease or worse, but if you are eating it everyday - multiple times a day- you will probably suffer some type of medical condition.

So get real dude.. fast food is crap.. for more than half the price, you can make your own burger at home - all within 15 minutes. That's fast. give it try. extra lean ground beef, shape into a patty.. season both sides with salt & pepper (be creative and add a spice/herb too!) Heat a pan on med/high. brown the patty on both sides until cooked through. Grab a bun and toast it if you like. Add condiments of choice. Lettuce, tomato, Pickles and relishes can be good options as they are low on calories and big on flavour! Once your burger is cooked, place on the bun. Enjoy with a side salad or yummy oven roasted yam fries!

Step away from the fast food burger Brian.. step away.. pick up a pan and cook something. lose weight Brian.

So Easy to Be Healthy!, Vancouver, BC Canada, eh!
November 30, 2008 1:58pm

"Anything processed is bad for you." [Citation needed]

Johan, Sweden
November 30, 2008 2:27pm

"So get real dude.. fast food is crap.. for more than half the price, you can make your own burger at home - all within 15 minutes. That's fast. give it try. extra lean ground beef, shape into a patty.. season both sides with salt & pepper (be creative and add a spice/herb too!) Heat a pan on med/high. brown the patty on both sides until cooked through. Grab a bun and toast it if you like. Add condiments of choice. Lettuce, tomato, Pickles and relishes can be good options as they are low on calories and big on flavour!"

How is the 510 calories, trans fats, and sodium you get from the burger any different than at fast food place than it would be at home? Either way it is bad for you.
Eating a hamburger at home costs much less than you would get at a store. Hamburger meat costs $3.00 a pound at wal-mart you can get
Lettuce, tomatoes, onions and other stuff for 10 dollars. You will get enough materials for about 5 hamburgers.

Or $12 with tax at the local Mickey D's. Which is the better deal?

Either way, it is bad for you.

Now, you get real. Just because it is fast food does not mean it is bad for you. Salads are now available at fast food place: are those bad for you? Now they are selling yogurt, fruit, even salads. Are those bad you too?

Moderation is more important than location of food.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
November 30, 2008 2:55pm

It's been a while since I saw the movie but two things have always stuck out in my mind. First, when asked in the begining if he was on any drugs,Spurlock said with a sly smile, " Not any more". It seemed a strange comment until, secondly, he stopped eating as much as he had been and started into what looked like classic withdrawl symptoms.

If he has a past history it could explain his addictive way of eating. And since he complained about the sugar content of much of the food, any past liver problems would give him the withdrawl symptoms.

I have searched the web but never been able to find any history on Spurlock.

Jack Geist, Miami, Fl
November 30, 2008 4:15pm

I note a recurrent theme in the comments: you are stupid and misguided if you imply that what everyone knows isn't true. "Screw your research, it's *True*." One comes across this aggressive attitude a lot - you can think if you want, but you'd better not contradict what everyone knows.
Grinding meat into hamburger doesn't make it bad, and even if someone is paid to grind it, it still isn't bad. Even if you call grinding "processing," it still isn't bad. Really. And I'm sorry I'm such a misguided and stupid person as to think about what "everyone knows."

Jonathan Crunch, Orlando, Fl
November 30, 2008 10:35pm

Spurlock's claims of mysterious medical conditions and mental health problems brought on by his McDonalds Diet were probably spurious, but is the Skeptoid trying to claim that a diet high in salt, corn syrup and saturated fat is not unhealthy? Millions of diabetics would beg to differ. In any case, this is one Skeptoid article that needs a little critical treatment itself. Are you claiming that Michael Pollan's adage "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" is garbage, and could be replaced by "Eat McDonalds. Not too much. Avoid the milkshakes" with the same effect on health?

Zack, Chicago
December 01, 2008 1:53pm

Zack Chicago said:
"Spurlock's claims of mysterious medical conditions and mental health problems brought on by his McDonalds Diet were probably spurious, but is the Skeptoid trying to claim that a diet high in salt, corn syrup and saturated fat is not unhealthy? Millions of diabetics would beg to differ. In any case, this is one Skeptoid article that needs a little critical treatment itself."

What's with the strawman argument? Nowhere in the podcast does it say go ahead and eat a diet high in fats, corn syrup and other things because it is actually good for you.

And no, he is not trying to replace one adage with another. The correct message you should have gotten from this article is know the facts about what you are eating. Also, everything in moderation. One Bigmac a day is not going to kill you.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 01, 2008 4:00pm

The most interesting part of Spurlock's film was when he probed the federal school lunch program. My mother is a grade school teacher, and she definitely questions why the cafeteria is serving things like pizza and nachos to eight-year-olds and calling that a "nutritious" lunch. I do wonder if changing kids' diets to less sugary foods would help them focus more.

With that said, I want to smack people every time I hear about how they love documentaries and then they mention guys like Morgan Spurlock, Michael Moore or Al Gore. Why don't documentaries have to carry a disclaimer saying "this information is for entertainment purposes only"? People watch them uncritically because they think that, since they're nonfiction, they must be TRUE.

Incidentally, the same goes for the cable channels... if nonfiction entertainment is going to present "facts," people should be aware that these "facts" may not be accurate or true.

SeanJJordan, St. Louis
December 02, 2008 12:03pm

First, Dunning says "Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city."

Leaving us to wonder how the lack of the poster's real name and real city somehow impairs the rationality or logical soundness of their posted arguments.

Dunning's article admits McDonald's is slowly giving up the use of transfats in cooking. Why? Did they suddenly discover Dunning was wrong, and that what they were serving was sufficiently lacking in nutrition to call for changing decades of standard practice?

More than 24 scientists and nutrition experts decy McDonald's food for lack of nutrtion
http://www.cspinet.org/new/smithsonian_nojunkfood.html

Also, representing the four food groups was deceptive, as a hamburger with cheese and tomato doesn't qualify as a properly proportioned serving of each of those 4 food groups.

Also, his citation of studies is ludicrous: Informed people know that malnutrition is slow to show symptoms. 30 days is not long enough to demonstrate what exactly the human body is being depleted/deprived of with a fast food diet.

Since Brian Dunning wishes to see us at the drive-thru, maybe he'd like to stay there and eat nothing but McDonald's for a year? Nah, Dunning isn't dumb enough to do what his arguments imply is safe. But it would be more comprehensive than the 30 day "supersize me" test.

He quotes no nutrition experts saying Mcdonald's food is a healthy choice. I think we all know why.

fake name, fake city
December 18, 2008 12:00am

The documentary was entertainment - his personal journey, not a scientific exploration. Fast food, like everything, is OK in moderation.

I am not a scientist, but regardless of what anyone says, if I eat too much fast food it makes my skin feel greasy, and gives me indigestion as its rich, and is lacking in fibre.

Skeptoid seem to be shooting themselves in the foot, they decry Spurlock, then admit more than 2 bigmacs a day exceeds healthy levels, this is where Spurlock was going, no wonder he felt ill. But skeptoid dont claim that Burgers are healthfood.

JC, England
December 18, 2008 5:48am

Spurlock ate 5000 calories a day. That is three entire value meals, which includes a soda, fries, and the burger itself. And to bulk up on the calories, Morgan opted for Large Shakes, which are 1200 calories each.

In other words, to get to that inflated amount, Morgan cooked the books just a tad.

If you eat only the hamburger, you get about 500 calories, one tenth of the amount Spurlock was eating.

Dunning does not say eat fast food all the time. Dunning is saying that you should not feel guilty when you do want to go through the drive thru every once in a while.

You have 30 scientists that says McDonald's is bad. How is that better than the thousands of scientists that say otherwise?

Now, Spurlock was not malnourished. He had other health problems before the movie started. He was a strict vegan that switched to an omnivore diet during the course of this movie. His body might not have been used to the fats he was eating.

Now, get this: Change the people's behaviors and health problems go away. It is not certain foods causing the problems. It is the people's eating habits. I do not blame the jack in the box down the street for my weight. I blame myself because it is the adult thing to do.

I said it before: If you eat three cheeseburgers a day, two medium sized pieces of fruit and drink water, that will cover most of your nutritional needs in one day. I will also add that you can eat a multivitamin in case you need more nutrition.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
December 18, 2008 6:17am

that documentary is just another example of the "snake oil" typical of our societal structure.
the documentary sells a fear based on exaggerations and misconceptions, and of course is about making money.
like the old west, we tend to repeat the same attitude towards everything, from medicines to spirituality, some "smart" guys will sell us the salomonical solution to any ailments real or imaginary.

alexin007, california
January 04, 2009 11:47pm

Yes, a big Mac has slightly over 500 calories but half of them are fat--not a food group.
Spurlock was also exploring the "super-size" option that MacD was offering.
But the last paragraph here is a logical doozy. No one ever said the trans-fat should or could be removed from meat. But that is natural trans-fat. Frying food in ARTIFICIAL trans-fat that has been partially hydrogenated is a completely different issue. And he switches between discussing the cooking oil issue and the trans-fat in beef itself. This kind of slip shod reasoning has no place in true skepticism.

mrs.chapin, USA
January 10, 2009 8:58pm

Brian began by saying that fast food chains have pledged to use oil that's free of trans-fats, so that just leaves natural trans-fats in the beef itself.

Max, Boston, MA
January 11, 2009 5:57am

McDonald's tastes like garbage. If your body is used to it, you can eat it and not get sick. If someone from the 13th century showed up in a time machine, who was used to breathing clean air, drinking clean water, eating vegetables out of her garden, and eating the cow out of her pasture, this person would probably become violently ill on McDonald's junk, just like the American Natives got sick as hell when the good old Europeans showed up. Fast food will keep you from starving to death if there is nothing else to eat. If you want to eat dog food, go ahead, give me an Organic Chi Energy Chraka Salad whom Buddha Blessed any day over McSwine Rot gut suicide puke...

anthonytrock, menomonie wi
February 03, 2009 9:51pm

"Yes, a big Mac has slightly over 500 calories but half of them are fat--not a food group."

Those are the fats in the animal itself. Those fats cannot be taken out of the animal and will appear in a McDonald's hamburger and the one you make at home. Why aren't you railing against the burgers you make at home? Why is the same amount of fat suddenly bad for you because it is inside a McDonald's wrapper?

A for the food group thing, that depends on what version of the pyramid you use. Fats are the top of older versions of the pyramids, mixed in with sweets. So, yeah a food group.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
February 08, 2009 9:17am

Trans fat is man made, it doesn't naturally exist in beef. The amount of fat in a burger is still a factor of how the meat is raised (corn fed instead of grass, feed lot instead of free range) and what parts of the cow are used (chuck, sirloin, trimmings et cetera). A quick zap in the microwave and your b12 vitamin is gone and your amino acids are diminished to help melt on your cheese. And we're only just figuring out how badly we need the vitamin D that you can only find in their little milk cartons. If you're a fan of evolution, you might take a look at how our babies are being born with abnormally large livers to deal with how much more unhealthy, toxic, and often novel food stuff goes through our system. All the iceberg lettuce and mexican gmo tomatoes in the world can't balance out that kind of unhealthiness they call a big mac. Try whole grains and plant protein from time to time.

Rob Z., Chicago
February 16, 2009 1:57pm

i used to eat fast food all the time and i felt sluggish all the time.

changed my diet to grains, fruits, veggies and lean meats and i feel 100% better

Andy, LA
February 16, 2009 3:42pm

Brian,
I was enjoying a number of the articles on this site (especially those related to Superjuices and colon cleanses), but this one really undermines your credibility. While I get your point--that fast food is not the source of all evil--you end up sounding like an apologist for an industry that puts much higher amounts of sodium, sugar, fat, etc into food than anyone ever would at home. While it's true that eating these foods in moderation, while balancing them out with healthier foods at home, might be ok, the problem is that many, many Americans eat fast foods almost exclusively. It's a major reason that we have such high levels of heart disease and diabetes, especially when compared with other developed nations. The logic in this article seems contrary to that articulated in a number of other, better ones on this site.

Tristin, Vermont
February 17, 2009 8:19am

Wow, what a completely misleading article.

As others have already pointed out, quoting the calories per burger, and then claiming you could eat three of them and meet your daily recommended calorie intake is completely misleading.

Honestly, how many people are going to McD's and only ordering a burger, with no fries or drink? Obviously, this is your choice, but a true "meal" at McDonalds is much more than the 700+ calories that you find in a burger.

RC, San Francisco
February 18, 2009 11:19am

The big mac link doesn't work.
Can someone fix that issue.

Manni, Miami, FL
February 25, 2009 8:47pm

I just discovered this site. No strong interest in this topic (just posted on the WTC7 thread), but defending fast food on a nutritional basis. Are you serious?

Let's see if we can come up with some common and consistent traits of all so-called "skeptic" sites.

1. These science advocates have no noteworthy science credentials of any kind. At least Dunning pokes fun of his complete lack of any serious education. I think the skeptics have one MD and a lot of magicians and it really shows when they pontificate on scientific issues.

2. Skeptic sites will always make claims consistent with the interests of corporate profits, which naturally leads authentic critical thinkers to be skeptical of their motives and funding. The JREF operational director is from the pharmaceutical industry -- SURPRISE, SURPRISE. Follow the money.

3. The hypocrisy of this group that prides itself on skepticism and critical thinking is mind-boggling. When it comes to their pet issues, they tow the line like a bunch of sheep with religious faith and fervor that would make the most ardent religious fundamentalist green with envy.

In short, self-proclaimed skeptics are a truly sorry lot.

And no matter how much clear and obvious scientific evidence is put in front of them, a skeptic will never, ever, ever go with the evidence and alter their religious beliefs. You simply cannot persuade these people with logic or science.

Oh well.

Tom, Hartford
February 25, 2009 10:54pm

I loved the article; this was one topic that I admit I’ve never really questioned. Fast food was blamed for obesity as well as all kinds of other problems by the media and everyone around me so I always assumed it was true.

Although I do think you should have mentioned the fries since it’s the poster-boy for sodium.
I looked into it myself and it seems that a small Fries only contains 160mg of salt. So as you said, not a problem unless you’re eating 20 a day.

Jay, Toronto Canada
March 01, 2009 1:36pm

Ummm.. when they quote those numbers, they usually provide the value before additional salt is sprinkled on top.

And I don't know about Canada, but everywhere else I have been they usually don't ask before doing the sprinkling.

Our local fish and chip shop asks....

:-)

Brenton, New Zealand
March 01, 2009 2:20pm

Fear of dentist is drilling through

Fear of dentist has got to be one of the most suffered phobias among people. A British study suggested that 4 out of 10 British are afraid of visiting the dentist in one way or another, while an American study claims that it's between 5 out of 10 in their group. That only tells us one thing: Among all phobias and fears, fear of dentist is by far the big winner.

We have mentioned before that fear of clowns and fear of success are very common social phobias and fears. While fear of clowns affect a big majority of children, fear of success rates better among adults. One of the things that fear of dentists and fear of clowns have in common is the way they originate.

These two phobias and fears are caused by a post-traumatic stress disorder. A previous dramatic or painful dentist experience might have been the trigger. Not only would a visit to the dentist cause such phobias and fears, but also the simple narration of a painful dentist event by an acquaintance can produce high levels of anxiety, meaning fear of dentists. Another element that can increase this fear, is the relationship with the dentist. It is not all about the mouth-instrument relationship, it is also a matter of how well the patient relates with their dentist. A calm, caring, understanding dentist will most likely lighten the experience.

Fear of dentists is generated by the invasive interventions like surgery and teeth extractions that the patient undergoes. As a con

weird phobia, canada
March 02, 2009 4:47pm

I enjoyed the episode, but I take issue with the sodium comment. The problem lies in the fact that it is very hard to actually stay at the recommended 1500mg of sodium each day. Virtually anything you eat that isn't a fruit or vegetable will have some sodium in it and it adds up very quickly. A slice of bread contains about 150-250mg, a small bowl of soup has 300-500mg.

While you may not be pushing yourseld over the allowance with the Big Mac alone, when combined with the average person's diet it can be quite high. You probably shouldn't be eating something that high in sodium unless you are planning to eat very lightly the rest of the day.

I guess what it comes down to is that sodium is an issue in pretty much any form of processed food (fast food included).

Love the podcast, keep it up!

Jon, Omaha, NE
March 06, 2009 9:32am

My only problem with comparing Supersize me with other studies, is that the reason he gouged himself was because McDonalds asked him to.

There's a point where it's ok to sell a service and a point where it's unethical. Is it unethical to upsell to a person who is overweight and would have simply purchased the lowest size value meal? Expecially considering the now unavailable size of the Super Size, which was an incredible amount of food.

I agree that anyone can be healthy and eat McDonalds on a daily basis, but I find upselling food to be unethical, and debunking Supersize me without looking at this aspect is not accurate.

noname, lamesville
March 13, 2009 8:54am

Why is it unethical to give people food when they ask for it? Is it more unethical to deny them food when they ask for it?

In what twisted version of reality does McDonald's providing food a count as ethical behavior?

This is not a question of ethics and I reject your notion that it is. McDonald's is not your nanny, nor is it in the business of doing so. We all have to accept responsibility for our actions and not look at places like McDonald's to be our Nanny.

I hate that you say they were asking for it because it is the easy answer. With that attitude, you can justify anything. You can justify rape, murder, and killing animals with that attitude.

"Well she deserved it. Look how she was dressed!"

It does not make it right and it is not ethical.

And besides, the people that ate all the food and got overweight were the ones asking for it. They knew the risks, still they went ahead and did it.

BTW: the most popular food items in McDonald's from 2005-2009 are: Salad, Water, Yogurt and that fruit salad they sell. Why aren't you giving McDonald's credit for doing the right thing?

It is also funny that the big mac never gets onto the list of worst foods that the CSPI publishes every quarter. And when it does, it is always the shake combo.

It is simple: Eat a Big Mac with Cheese, Small soda and none of the fries and you will never break 900 calories. Eating the fries is what screws us over.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
March 23, 2009 7:32am

Yes! A belief that fast food isn't bad unless over-eaten daily. LIKE EVERY OTHER FOOD ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!!! hahahaha... Love it. I eat fast food all the time and while for a girl I'm tall (6') I'm still tiny >.< (130 lbs.) So yeah..... most of my friends (male or female) are like that. We all eat fast food probably.... 4-6 times a week. But Super Sizing everything, and getting all the embellishments??? No thank you. Of course that's going to really suck for your health later on. Whatever though. It seems people are more susceptible to fear rather than anything else.... Hmmmm... *thinks about ways to start cults that give money to me, through fear of fast food!* In any case, so very true, and its good to see someone step back and look at it from an educated point of view, well done once again sir.

Kyra

Kyra P., Colorado Springs, Colorado
April 04, 2009 5:16am

Macdonalds has become the whipping boy of choice, it isnt their fault if people like their food!

I am currently going through some supersize type experiment myself, working with US forces in the middle east, we have moved from UK food suppier to US food contract, the food is is much fattier, much more is fried and processed, and having eaten 2 meals today at the DFAC I feel ill! But strangely enough, many of the GI's are fit and healthy (very few are overweight).

It goes to back up what many say, the food isnt the problem, its the individuals choice of what they eat and do. The GI's here work very hard, do plenty of exercise, I sit in an office. It isnt the food suppliers (MacD or otherwise) problem, its the individual to blame for not getting the food in and energy out equation correct, a personal responsibility, not a corporate one.

Jez

Jez Corfield (JC), England
April 05, 2009 10:37am

Joseph Furguson.

There are people called, "salesmen". A salesman's job is to make a customer leave with a larger item than they intended to or any item if they didn't intend to. And their very existence is proof that they can. Pretending strong willpower will protect a person makes them an easier target.

McDonald's is an easy target, but they're also a leader in new sales techniques. They are built on suggestive selling, which is something that McDonald's pioneered.

If you try to leave with your coke and burger, they will upsell you on either fries or a combo meal. This is their business model, and from the looks of it, their business works.

If you find it ethical that McDonald's requires* employees to try their best for you to leave with fries, increasing your hypothetical meal to over 900 calories, at the sake of your health, well, that is your opinion, since ethics are not rigid.

If McDonald's creating sales methods which result in the increase in calorie intake of their customers is just like raping a women because the way she looks, well. Actually, I'm not sure I understand why the hell you brought that up.

The only way I can make that analogy work is if you believe that stealing a tire is illegal, but selling a tire with a hole in it is simply business.

*(Or use to, I don't currently know any McDonald's workers)

noname, lamesville
April 08, 2009 8:15am

You were trying to make McDonald's responsible for our weight gain because they are selling food, noname. You were saying they have the food, so they are responsible for our weight gain. With that attitude you can justify anything, even rape. That was point. "They were selling it to me, so they are responsible."

"If you try to leave with your coke and burger, they will upsell you on either fries or a combo meal."

Not in any of the McDonald's I go to. I am pretty sure that is also the case in the McD's in your area of the country. I tell them no fries and they listen. They will listen to you as well. They do not try coercion. "You want fries with that" is not coercion. If they kept asking until you relent, that would be coercion. They do not coerce.

"The only way I can make that analogy work is if you believe that stealing a tire is illegal, but selling a tire with a hole in it is simply business. "

That is not the case because there is no equivalence in this situation. With the tire, it is safety issue. Because you can endanger the public safety, the tire shop can be sued for being unethical. Fast Food places are not endangering the public. They provide a service that we do not need.

You talk about public safety with fast food, but you aren't going after Carl's Jr. They currently have burgers that are 2 times the health hazard than the closest McDonald's burger.

McDonald's food has been getting healthier over the last 5 years. CSPI agrees with me.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
April 08, 2009 9:39am

I’ve never seen ‘Supersize Me’ but when I read the premise and the synopsis of the film, I was suspicious. Guys like Spurlock and Michael Moore are in a sense cut from the same cloth. They represent a new breed of documentarian; if the subject or object of the documentary isn’t telling the story you want it to, you manipulate conditions so that your vision is realized and your opinion is fully expressed. Al Gore falls into this category too. In the old days these guys’ work would be called propaganda and relegated to second or third tier status at best. Now it is widely distributed and even nominated for major awards.

Everything in moderation, including moderation itself.

RJ, Alberta, Canada
April 09, 2009 1:13pm

Yeah, like trans-fats, sodium, saturated fats, and cholesterol were the only problem of Mc's food. What about GMO? Which is the reason I rarely eat fast food. What is more, I don't really believe that Mc's food is rich of calcium, proteins and blabla'ins. Only the most fresh food is the richest in these and, however, mc's food is kept in refrigerators for months till it is sold.

miauen, Klaipeda, Lithuania
April 27, 2009 8:49am

McDonald's almost killed my boyfriend two days ago, he ate a egg and bacon bagel and almost died of e-coli poisoning. Not to mention the little girl in England who died after eating a burger. Also in Surrey BC another young girl died. McDonald is pure EVIL! They exploit animals and people alike. They destroy forrest and nature. They are coprised of pure corporate greed and food which will kill you by a slow or quick death depending how badly off you are already.

sarah smith, Calgary Alberta
May 06, 2009 2:12pm

Sarah,

I am no fan of McDonalds, but ANY food can suffer from E. coli contamination.

Don't forget - McDonalds sell many millions of burgers worldwide each year.

If McDs were bad in this regard, you wouldn't have three anecdotes of E. coli contamination - you'd have many thousands.

Whatever else is wrong with McDonalds, cleanliness and good food handling is actually one of the things they largely do right.

Brenton, New Zealand
May 06, 2009 4:31pm

Not almost every meal was super sized. I love reading articles here but your article lost credibility immediately. He super sized 9 times, mostly offered in Texas. I've seen the movie multiple times and I am positive of this. Change it!

Jesse, NJ
May 10, 2009 1:18pm

Jesse from NJ is right, ive seen this movie severakl times as well and while I agree with several points in your article spurlock did not super size most of the time.

James, CA
May 11, 2009 9:56am

And those times he did not supersize his food, he ordered a large shake instead. Either way, he got to the 5000 calories that he was eating.

Joseph Furguson, Beawley, Ca
May 11, 2009 11:34am

Thank you, Mr. Dunning! This article clears up a lot of the stuff I had been trying look at myself! I have fast food probably 4 or 5 times a week, but not in gross amounts. Thank you for this article!

Mitch, Eagan, MN
May 15, 2009 9:35am

Hell lets say we forget all the calories. Fast food packs so much fats, sugar, sodium, more chemicals than my science lab and good old fried cancer for your body you should really limit yourself when it comes to eating that garbage. Sure there are other foods just as bad, thats why they there is a category called junk food. Learn to eat real home cooked meals.

Ignorant Sheeps, Earth
May 16, 2009 6:03pm

I've only watched this piece of sensational junk ones, but I came away with the impression that this guy is using the film to push his vegetarian bandwaggon.

Additionally, I got the impression that he was a gym junkie, and not only stopped working out, but he also stated that he started catching cabs everywhere he would normally walk.

So basically his movie tagline should have been

"I stopped doing exercise and force fed myself junkfood, and put on weight... Ergo everyone should become a vegetarian"

Brilliant.

Mike, Sydney
May 17, 2009 3:33am

I met Morgan Spurlock back in 2004 after a screening of his movie. He was available for a Q&A session, and after seeing his movie, I asked him about a specific scene where he ordered breakfast, the Egg McMuffin value meal, and then ordered a sausage biscuit (with egg?) to go with it. My question was as to why he ordered more food then what McDonald's suggested as a reasonable portion. His response? By that point in the movie, he had become "addicted" to the food, and what was available from a single value meal was no longer enough to sate his hunger.

This brought up an interesting point; It is not only that McDonald's serves food that is less than healthy, it was they encouraged over-eating. So it was not the nutritional content he was commenting on, but the advertising technique of McDonalds, claiming them to be not too far from tobacco companies, which you can't deny try to convince people to do something grossly unhealthy.

He was also asked what he would have McDonalds do, if he were given one edict to issue. His answer did not have anything to do with offering healthier options, but pertained to McDonald's advertising. Specifically that of advertising toward children. He would want them to eliminate the Happy Meal, do away with play rooms, and get rid of the colorful, kid-friendly mascots.

So I wouldn't really criticize Spurlock on his medical claims, as that wasn't the true point of his movie, but rather, he was condemning the corporate propaganda machine.

Jason, College Park
May 21, 2009 9:47pm

Jason,
So Spurlock should get a pass on his questionable claims and admittedly inconsistent methods, because he's anti-corporate?

We shouldn't be moved by McDonald's advertising, but Spurlock's seemingly disengenuous pseduo-documentary should move us.

Morgan, Tracy, CA
June 10, 2009 4:56pm

I recently read a terrific book that does this same sort of thing for dozens of foods and various aspects of eating habits/patterns. It's "The Gospel of Food" by Barry Glassner.

http://www.tinyurl.com/gospeloffood

I highly recommend it! : )

Sheldon W. Helms, San Ramon, CA
June 15, 2009 9:03pm

Tune in next week for...

Smoke em if you got em!

Recent studies prove the smoking is not really all that bad for you!

frank, beijing, china
June 20, 2009 6:43am

Spurlock wasn't conducting a scientific study, and wasn't claiming to either. He was very upfront about his methods, and did not try to hide what he did or be deceptive.

If McDonald's advertise through their very creative methods that it is safe to eat their food 3 times a day, plus actively seek people to buy the larger portions, then they should know that at least some people will eat accordingly. Their food is registered to have high Carbon-13 and Nitrogen-15 Isotopes, which indicate fecal mnatter may be present in the meat, or that lost of chemicals are used in their prep. Labs show their fat and sugar content is much higher than a burger you might cook at home from store baught meat (the healthiness of a food producxt is not just how many calories, but all aspects together- making a statement that a Big MAc having just 550 or so calories a very deceptive fact as to how healthy it really is).

Why is it that some imply Spurlock's experiement was "tweeked" but others who claim to have eaten McDonald's for a month and lost weight didn't tweek their results? I think that if you really want to lose weight, you won't go to McDonald's to do it.

Paul, Leesville, LA
August 05, 2009 9:49am

Is that the best you can come up with, Paul? Every living thing on this planet has a naturally amount of carbon 13 and Nitrogen 15. Both of these compounds do nothing to the human body because "Such compounds are safe because they are non-radioactive."

See that word: They are non radioactive. That means they do not decay at all.

What you are doing is called fear mongering and I will not let you get away with it. You use a little bit of scientific knowledge to make your pseudo science sound credible.

Before you spout off the what if it is dangerous to people, know this tidbit of information. If it was dangerous to people, we would have already known about it. The government is some evil conspiracy that keeps information like that under wraps. Someone would have come forward with his documentation and told the world of its dangers.

And if you really cared about people's health, you would go after Carl's Junior instead of McDonald's. The healthiest thing at Carl's is a Southwestern chicken sandwich, which has 540 calories. The average burger at McDonald's has 500 calories, while the average at Carl's is closer to 800.

You do not care about people's health. You are only going after the easy targets and nothing else.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
August 20, 2009 10:39am

Watch this if you've got time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Dan, Not McDonalds
September 09, 2009 6:52am

This article is not about sugary foods Dan, but about fatty ones. How does your propaganda apply to this article?

Guess what: you are fighting evolution and not the ad executives. Evolution has wired into us a desire to have sweet and fatty foods. Back in the day, when we were our ancestors. When given a choice between healthy and sweet, we are programed to desire sweet.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
September 09, 2009 8:59am

McDonalds is horribble. Do you people really want to get fat and waste your money!!

Unknown, Planet Mars
November 10, 2009 7:01am

That Deluxe Breakfast that "only" has 1150 calories also provides you with 60 grammes of fat (92% of your recommended daily allowance), 20 grammes of which are saturated. (100% RDA.) You're also treated to 575mg of cholesterol, an artery busting 192% RDA and 94% of your sodium intake. Still, at least you get 7 grammes of fibre. Mmmmmmmmmm. Healthy. If you're going to accuse someone of misrepresentation, I suggest you don't cherry pick your facts to build an argument.

Jeff, England
November 16, 2009 11:10am

Joseph Furguson,

I apologize for my late response.

Please stop with the strawman.

First, I did NOT claim that McDoanld's food is better or worse than other fast food offerings. My complaint is in the marketing and sales, not the food items themselves.

Secondly, coercion is not the only way to convince someone to do something. I claim that suggesting increasing portions for customers is unethical. I do NOT say that they use force, but I do say they use highly paid psychologists specializing in advertising and salespeople to come up with a pitch that will convince the most people to increase the size of their portions. And it works.

I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I acknowledge that the majority of businesses use psychologists to mold their advertising. However, a group of people getting together to convince others to do an action that is adverse to their health is unethical.

Just because someone does something stupid doesn't mean that a person who convinced the first person to do it isn't responsible. They are both responsible, although not equally, and shifting the responsibility entirely on one party is the definition of blaming the victim.

So I guess my third point is I am holding both the consumer and McDonald's responsible, not just McDonald's.

Lastly, I agree that McDonald's has been healthier in the last 5 years. This does not change how they were acting during the filming of Supersize me.

noname, lamesville
December 03, 2009 7:39am

What Strawman? I am pointing out that you are picking on McDonald's for no other reason than it being the biggest target when there are much worse offenders.

That is not a strawman. That is pointing out a hole in your logic.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
December 12, 2009 9:34am

"some foods, like meat and some vegetables, contain naturally occurring trans-fat"

Wait, which vegetables have naturally occurring trans fats?

Haras, Texas
December 22, 2009 4:41pm

Avocados have naturally occurring trans fats. A few of the ones from the Asian world also have transfats.

Milk too, incase you are wondering.

As for anyone else, a new list of works fast food hamburgers is out and this years, for the 5th year in a row, a McDonald's anything has not appeared on the list.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2009/12/14/daily35.html

I am sure glad that I eat a Big Mac once in a while because I can do a lot worst than that.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
December 23, 2009 5:20pm

Not to state the obvious, but neither avocados nor milk count as vegetables.

I can't find anywhere that states that there are trans fats in avocados. Do you have a reference for that?

Haras, Texas
December 23, 2009 10:55pm

In the U.S. they are classified as vegetables, so they count as vegetables.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
December 24, 2009 8:18am

A lot of people think they're vegetables, that doesn't mean there's some sort of official vegetable classification for them. But I will definitely concede that it's likely most people would refer to avocados as vegetables.

Really I'm still more curious about the trans fat issue. Do you have a reliable reference stating that avocados (or any other fruit/vegetable) have trans fats in them?

Haras, Texas
December 24, 2009 9:20am

"In the U.S. they are classified as vegetables, so they count as vegetables."

First off, I love this. America says it, therefore it must be right! Cue much due eye-roll...

Anyway, it doesn't seem at all sensible to me to justify eating mass amounts of fast food. Even if you are saying "fast food is not all that bad" and say that it's alright once in a while, there's a perception that you're justifying eating fast food a lot is fine... and the reality is people often eat it more than "once in a while".

Theresa, Port Hawkesbury
January 14, 2010 6:32pm

I share many points of view with Brian Dunning. I agree that nuclear energy should be a way ahead of coil burning energy. I agree with his position that science should be a way ahead of religion. Unfortunately on some episodes Brian can be mean to his opponents. I think intelligent people should not attack their opponents this way. Some episodes lack thorough, dip research which is fine, since we don't pay for podcasts, episodes are free. Thought many universities with world leading professors share lectures online these days. Brian is biased when it comes to food. He laughed at clean way of eating fruits and vegetables and thinks that eating fast food is a normal. This is a dangerous path that can lead to large medical expenses later in your life. Brian, you mentioned several times that you agree if your podcast would be used in schools. Not this one. With obesity in US among kids, please stay away from schools. You can destroy many students' health if you bring them this episode.

Dimitri, Stoney Creek, Ontario, Canada
January 20, 2010 9:24pm

What should be worth noting is that Morgan Spurlock is very likely not the cynic's choice of a liar in this sort of thing.

While me may be biased, the one fact about the movie that stuck with me, and which I think about every time the subject of fast food occurs to me:

There's a guy in the film Spurlock meets, who says he eats one or several Big Macs a day, and he's thin and healthy. He clarifies that he ONLY eats the burgers, but not french fries or milk shakes.

Perhaps then those two (Fries and shakes) are the only real unhealthy things in fast food?

Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
January 22, 2010 7:45am

I found this to be quite misleading. How can you draw any significant conclusions (either way) based on an experiment of this length. It seems to me that health issues resulting from diets often take many years to develop and are dependent on a plethora of factors that are unique to individuals. Then to base your conclusion on government (the same government that boasts its ever changing, one-size-fits-all food pyramid) recommendations, without questioning their validity is irresponsible. This is far from skepticism.

Jake Long, Detroit
January 27, 2010 3:27pm

Wrong, Jake. Skepticism is the neutral position and it does not mean doubt the source. I means remain doubtful until someone proves their point. In this case, the government has proven their case. The food pyramid is created by government food scientists whose only agenda is promoting good health.

So, I do not trust the government. I trust the scientists that created the pyramid.

Jakob Ambrose, Holtville Ca
January 27, 2010 8:46pm

nonsense! blindly trusting any research (especially government, which has proven to be wrong much of the time), is the exact opposite of skepticism. saying that the only agenda of government food scientists is promoting health is not skepticism; it's naive. There are likely a great deal of them that do have those good intentions, but to make that broad claim, and to believe that those intentions automatically lead to correct findings is foolish.

which pyramid do you trust? the old one or the new vague one without any recommended servings? do you consider your individual circumstances and needs when when making diet choices, or do you just blindly follow the recommendations of the government because they have really smart, well intentioned scientists working hard to figure out a one-size-fits-all diet for everyone?

Jake Long, Detroit
January 28, 2010 6:03am

Why can't conspiracy theorist and government critics ever figure out that wildly speculating, exaggerating, and acting as though the government is inherently evil and out to get everyone, NEVER gets people to listen to them, but automatically dismiss them as an idiot or an asshole?

Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
January 29, 2010 6:37am

nowhere in my comment did i insinuate a conspiracy theory. i am merely as SKEPTICAL of government information as i am from any source. why shouldn't I be. are they any less fallible than the anyone else. there are many reasons to look upon government information with an even more skeptical eye. namely, they have a coercive monopoly on much of what they do. their work often goes unchecked and they are rarely held responsible for their actions. but again, this does not prove one way or another. i'll say it again: it's naive to blindly follow the recommendations by ANY source, including the government simply because you believe they have good intentions. i thought that was the whole point of this website.

Jake Long, Detroit
January 29, 2010 8:43am

I don't know how to respond to that. Honestly, I don't even care. For some reason, I don't even consider it necessary to be skeptical of the government---in my experience, my old approach to the government was:

"Everything they say is a lie, half-lie, or they are unbelievably incompetent, not out of any malice or secretive crime or conspiracy, but merely out of shame or secretive crime like a sex scandal or embezzling"

Though as of late, the best approach I take is:

"Everything they say is a product of overbearing compromises between two political parties and thousands of diverging ideas and politics, creating a heaping mess of something that neither side started out wanting."

Andariel Halo, Miami, Florida
February 01, 2010 6:29am

I like this podcast because of the common sense approach it takes. Sometimes, however, I notice little argumentative techniques which I generally consider a little... lopsided. A good example came up in this episode:

If a Big Mac contains only about a quarter of your daily calories but two thirds of your daily salt intake, you will find it quite difficult to make up the difference in calories.

I occasionally eat at McDonald's. I find nothing inherently terrible about enjoying it as a treat, but I do think that careful consideration is required. Over doing it on salt or fat every once in a while is no big deal, most of us have excellent livers and kidneys. However, I think to present an unbiased view of the nutritional value of any meal, it must be presented in a fair perspective.

I don't know what McDonald's meals the controlled dieters were eating, but I'd love to know more.

Either way, I do basically agree that impassioned loathing of fast food as in some way innately inferior sustenance is ridiculous- political arguments aside. My only real 'beef' (sorry couldn't help it) is with presenting data in a way that uninformed consumers may interpret incorrectly.

Amanda McDonald, New York, NY
May 26, 2010 10:03am

Professor Lessig has some good presentations where he shows how the sugar industry lobbied the government into giving fabricated/bogus food recommendations. One must also be sceptical of any government's advice wrt nutrition.

Dr. Roy Schestowitz, Manchester UK
July 10, 2010 3:25am

"...a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult"? A thousand calories for breakfast? I don't usually eat much more than a thousand calories in a day.

That said, there are McDonalds meals with reasonable (by normal standards) amounts of calories - a small meal with McNuggets is just a little over 600, for instance. You'd only eat one of them in a day, balanced with a light salad or similar for the other daily meal, but it's not nearly as bad as the thousand calories in a larger meal with a burger.

Claire, Australia
August 08, 2010 5:25am

Having spent a lot of time on the road, I can state with complete confidence that fast food will not sustain life as we know it indefinitely. Purely subjective reaction, of course. ... We are all familiar with the disconnect between theory and practice. In theory, fast food specs out fine, with all the essential nutrients we are supposed to need. In practice, the stuff is noxious, and the longer you are confined to it as your exclusive source of sustenance, the more you come to realize just how unsatisfactory it is as "food." This may perhaps relate to the fact that it is made with cheap, overprocessed ingredients, as remote from Life as the Reagan administration. And please don't get me started on HFCS!

Barton Spring, Austin, Tx
August 25, 2010 5:34pm