« Comedy Central Signs Spurlock | Main | Whiskey for 30 Days »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83425bc0d53ef00d8344f3d6153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Attacking the Mac:

Comments

Chris Berez

This is why I don't understand the point of Spurlock's documentary (which I still haven't seen) to begin with. Of course fast food is bad for you. Of course you should eat it in moderation. The whole concept behind his film just strikes me as pointless and idiotic. Unless he was doing it for purely comedic value (which he wasn't), then why bother? Oh, that's right: attacking the "big evil" corporations is chic, and profitable at that.

Also, breaking down foods like this just makes me want to eat them out of spite. I could care less how much fat a big mac contains. They're tastey, and I enjoy eating them. I'm not eating them every day. It's not as if I'll drop dead immediately after eating one.

actus

"No one food item will meet all of the USDA's suggestions."

Wouldn't a food item with less grams of fat than the average meet this one?

DS

actus, some critical reading skills might be helpfull. "No one food item will meet ALL of the USDA's suggestions." is talking about ALL of the suggestions, which include more than just fat content.

actus

"actus, some critical reading skills might be helpfull. "No one food item will meet ALL of the USDA's suggestions." is talking about ALL of the suggestions, which include more than just fat content."

I'm not so sure that no food item meets USDA requirements. Unless you're also talkign about minimums, such as minimum quantities of vitamins. Like, what USDA suggestion does an apple violate?

Timothy

The point is that there isn't a single food item that will meet the requirements the way Spurlock has done them: by scaling down the total diet to a single food. An apple has way too much fibre, for instance, if you do it that way.

The USDA suggestions are for a whole diet, it doesn't work on a food-by-food basis, that would be supid. Just like Spurlock.

actus

"The USDA suggestions are for a whole diet, it doesn't work on a food-by-food basis, that would be supid"

But its not quite a food by food basis to pick out which foods are heavy on some terms and which are light on those terms. Like take the apple with its fibre. How much does an apple exceed a fibre recommendation? The big mac exceeds a percentage requirement -- thats why we can take just one food item -- what percentage requirement does the apple violate?

Timothy

Let me put this in small words:

The USDA requirements say 30% of your dietary calories should come from fat. Meaning that in a given day, 30% of the calories you ingest should come from fats.

Spurlock notes that a Big Mac has 560 calories, 270 of which are from fat, meaning that ~48.2% of a Big Mac's calories come from fat.

Spurlock then goes on to say that the Big Mac is evil because it has more than 30% of its calories from fat. However, one can assume that your entire diet is not Big Macs, and that the 270 calories from fat you get from that Big Mac really comprise more like 13.5% of a 2000 calorie diet. So you've got another 396.6 calories from fat in your daily diet, presuming 2000 calories. That's another 132g of fat! You could have a Big Mac for lunch, and real food the rest of the day and still hit the USDA dietary recommendations. That's the bloody point.

Timothy

Let me put this in small words:

The USDA requirements say 30% of your dietary calories should come from fat. Meaning that in a given day, 30% of the calories you ingest should come from fats.

Spurlock notes that a Big Mac has 560 calories, 270 of which are from fat, meaning that ~48.2% of a Big Mac's calories come from fat.

Spurlock then goes on to say that the Big Mac is evil because it has more than 30% of its calories from fat. However, one can assume that your entire diet is not Big Macs, and that the 270 calories from fat you get from that Big Mac really comprise more like 13.5% of a 2000 calorie diet. So you've got another 396.6 calories from fat in your daily diet, presuming 2000 calories. That's another 132g of fat! You could have a Big Mac for lunch, and real food the rest of the day and still hit the USDA dietary recommendations. That's the bloody point.

Del

This is a little off-topic, but it just happened so I thought I'd share:

Did you know that you get less for your money now because of that jackass Spurlock. And I don't mean just McDonalds. Wendy's now gives you a smaller size fries when you order a biggie size combo. You use to get a 'great biggie' size fries in the red container, but now you get the next size smaller in the yellow container. I asked the girl about it and she said it has "something to do with people getting fat or something". She also agreed that its dumb and that people should get what they want. I knew this would happen, fast food places are now using Supersize Me as an excuse to give you less for your money. People should just take responsiblility for their own behavior. Spurlocks an idiot.

Somebody should write to Wendy's and find out why they did this and how it affects the price of a biggie combo. I'm pretty sure the price is the same. And Im positive this is Spurlock related. I may write to them myself, but you may yourself if you want; it could be a scoop for your blog.

actus

"You could have a Big Mac for lunch, and real food the rest of the day and still hit the USDA dietary recommendations. That's the bloody point."

Well, the real food would have to be well below the recommendations. My point is that its not quite true that all food violates some percentage recommendation -- that other "real food" wouldn't.

"I knew this would happen, fast food places are now using Supersize Me as an excuse to give you less for your money. People should just take responsiblility for their own behavior. Spurlocks an idiot."

One person who could take responsibility for their own behavior would be you, who is paying more for less. Its a free market, take your demands elsewhere. Another would be wendys, who is actually making the decision here, not spurlock. Try not to make spurlock take responsibility for other's decisions.

Carlos Gomez

Spurlock himself did not prompt Wendy's or anybody else to reduce portion sizes. The fact is that American portion sizes are simply big. Really big. Did you know that the SuperSized version of fries at a Canadian McD's is the same size as the regular large at an American McD's?

I recently ate at an American Subways. Perhaps its just my perception, but it seemed to me that the sandwich had much more meat in it than I was used to having in a Canadian Subways.

As to why this is the case, perhaps it is because the American consumer demands value for their money, and bigger is deemed to be better and therefore somehow mentally equates to more value. Even so, it's still no excuse to misrepresent the dietary information from the FDA.

Rann

>>The fact is that American portion sizes are simply big. Really big.<<

Or maybe it's just that the rest of the world are cheap bastards who make you pay for a fucking glass of water with your meal.

Alex

You think the fast food meals in other countries are smaller because they are looking out for your health? People here demand a good portion of food for a low price. Maybe it's because Americans work longer hours than any other first world country's people and build up a greater appetite. Maybe in Canada you like to still be hungry after you eat a meal. I don't really know. What I do know is I get 2 meals out of a footlong sub from subways and that's a good deal to me.

Chalicechick

((( Maybe it's because Americans work longer hours than any other first world country's people and build up a greater appetite. )))

Ummm... Yeah. Because I sit on my ass at my computer for extra time, I really NEED those extra calories.

And I'm sure the smaller Wendy's fries for more money thing has everything to do with pleasing Morgan Spurlock and nothing at all to do with, oh, a fast food company making higher profits and getting to claim they are being healthy at the same time.

I don't like Morgan Spurlock either, but let's not fight irrationality with irrationality.

CC

JSinger

"The big mac exceeds a percentage requirement -- thats why we can take just one food item -- what percentage requirement does the apple violate?"

As it happens, an all-apple diet would have an excess of sugar. But the part that you seem not to grasp is this: minimum quantities are more important than the (relatively arbitrary) maximums and extrapolating an apple to 100% of your diet gives you zero vitamins B12 and D, and dangerously low levels of many other nutrients (other B's, zinc, ...).

Of course, apples are generally regarded as "good for you" and they are -- because it's assumed that no one is stupid enough to eat 5000 calories of apples every day.

yz800

Most people know that fresh coffee in a styrofoam cup is hot too...

DS

zy800, yes, but most people don't purchase a food item that is served at a temperature that will cause 3rd degree burns. Not a scalding, but a deep burn. "She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused."... and " McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, "... and " a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.". See the source here : http://caoc.com/facts.htm . As much as I would love to say that this was a baseless lawsuit, if one actually reads into what happened, there is no way that this was a baseless lawsuit.

Rann

And this is relevant to nutritional information... how?
Answer being, obviously, it's not, and that you're just blatantly at this point avoiding Spurlock's excuse and going right to his real meaning: McDonald's is evil and wants to hurt you.

DS

When someone brings up a point that is wrong, isn't it a good thing to correct them with real facts (as opposed to Moore and Spurlock-esque only in their world "facts")? If you wanted to run around with your head up your ass all day long, I know of a few good movies to get you all worked up.

amy

The point of the movie was to dramatize by experiment in "fast motion" what happens to the human body over time when we eat a diet high in trans fats and processed foods: we develop fatty liver, obesity and heart disease (still, I believe, the #1 killer in this country). Many people in the U.S. and around the world are slowly poisoning themselves by eating food which has been processed to the point of nutritional uselessness, milk and meat which comes from cows raised on hormones and steroids, and fries saturated in heavy fats. It is good to have choices and freedom, but we need to make informed choices, and many people don't do that.

jaboobie

"we need to make informed choices, and many people don't do that. "

Who needs to? Me? You? That guy? All of us? Who says so? You're trying to prevent people from being stupid and that's a never ending uphill battle.

Anyone, anywhere in the U.S. can go to their public library to find out what a nutrtional diet includes. You make it sound that there's poor families out there lamenting the fact that they just don't know what a "good diet" is and have no idea how to find out so they just eat fast food. That's a bunch of B.S.


"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -Mencken

LOL

LOL you stupid fu**s. More blogs on Morgan Spurlock, the more publicity he receives, the more people buy his books/dvd, the more money he has, the more documentaries he makes. It's a cycle and you guys are responsible for him making millions, so while you sit at home and blog, he writes more mocumentaries and makes more money. HHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sucks.

Sloppy

I love how people argue about this stuff. The problem here isn't Morgan Spurlock, and the problem isn't big evil corporations. People are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and I don't care how hypnotically convicing the commercials are. Everyone knows what a healthy diet is, and regardless of what some people think, everyone has some capacity to gain control over their habits. When the time comes where Americans stop making excuses and start making some progess on solving problems themselves, maybe the corporations and the Spurlocks of the world will lose some of their financial and political clout.

Mangosteen Juice in Cardio Cocktail

We can help you manage your lifestyle to better manage your weight and reduce your risk for heart attack.

Spurwing Plover

I wouldnt bother wasting my money renting or buying spurlocks books or his crappy movies especialy his crappy SUERSIZE ME since spurlock is a jerk and a complete moron

The comments to this entry are closed.