The McDonald’s Diet
Published by Yazad Jal October 14th, 2004 in Culture and SocietySometime back, I wrote about the Morgan Spurlock documentary, Super Size Me where Spurlock eats exclusively at McDonald’s and gains 25 pounds and his cholestrol shoots up. Some reviews criticised Spurlock for being biased (e.g. purposely cutting out any exercise) and some hypotheised that it’s not unknown to eat healthy at McDonalds.
Five months later, I revisited Super Size Con, one of the sites set up to combat Spurlock, and was pleasantly surprised. There was an article on two Americans who took on Spurlock and ate exclusively at McDonalds for 30 days — both lost weight and one of them even managed to lower her blood cholestrol levels!
I was intrigued and followed a link to the site of one of McDonald’s dieters — Chazz Weaver. Chazz is a fitness instructor with a masters degree in economics. He set up Truth in Fitness mainly to counter the myths spread by the likes of Spurlock
I started Truth In Fitness in response to what I saw as a rising tide of obesity in our country and a corresponding refusal to acknowledge its root cause—the choices that people make. This is a belief that I have held for many years but what compelled me to undertake this cause so passionately (and at my own expense) was the announcement of the soon-to-be-released movie, “Super Size Me.” source
Weaver maintained a detailed diary of his 30 day McDonald’s diet and ate every item on the menu at least once. His daily calorie intake was an average of 4,321 over the period, and he still managed to lose 8 pounds!
The moral of the story? Don’t blame the company making the food if you eat too much and don’t exercise. And don’t believe every documentary that comes your way.
Update (October 15): Soso Whaley, the other challenger to Spurlock has an interesting webpage too. One thing which I’d overlooked yesterday was on credibility. Both Whaley and Weaver kept bills / receipts of their food purchases while Spurlock did not. An important thing to document which somehow slipped?
I disagree. Spurlock exercised as much as an average American or McD-eater would. Walked as much as everyone usually does..about 4500-5000 steps. It is a myth that all americans exercise. Those who do, don’t eat at McDonalds.
I never said all Americans exercise. You attack a ghost sentence and then make a big assumption “those who do (exercise) don’t eat at McDonalds” eh? Sounds like an exaggeration! I exercise and I eat at McDonalds too.
The reason I liked Truth in Fitness is that Weaver takes a balanced opinion. Spurlock’s conclusion is that there is a “fast food epidemic” – no, what’s epidemic is a lack of responsibility. Blaming the burger flipper for stuffing your face is simply shifting responsibility.
I wrote again on the topic because I saw Spurlock as being spurious. Two others tried out a McDonald’s diet and actually lost weight! There’s a pretty interesting comparison between Soso Whaley and Morgan Spurlock here. I like the bottom line:
“Irresponsible consumption and no activity” is what many inner-city residents do. Spurlock was merely trying to highlight that fact…he did admit that his program was extreme but he also noted that people who eat fast food 4-5 times a week exist…and that is not a healthy sign.
I agree that a citizen is responsible for his own actions but what makes McDonalds liable is that they do not anywhere in their stores give you the calorie count of the products they sell. You have to log on to their website to get their information. Legally speaking a disclaimer (like cigarettes have) would be ok as then they can say that it is not their fault but the customers choice. Howver in order to argue that, they have to provide the customer with sufficient information to make that choice.
Seriously, what kind of subhuman creatures have Americans turned into? Even an animal knows the kind of food that is good for it and has an instinctive avoidance of poisonous stuff. Most animals above the level of insects know how to feed their young. What kind of creatures can ask, without any shame, that a corporation take over these functions for them?
Unrelated: I created a syndication feed for AnarCapLib on LJ. So, folks can subscribe to it through LJ. It’s at http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=anarcaplib
Interesting point that you raise Ravikiran. Interestingly humans are one of the few species who do not automatically know how to take care of their young. Hence you have the professions of wet nannies and postrum doulas who are trained professional who are hired to ‘train’ mothers on how to take care of their newly borns. So yes animals know how to take care of their young but somewhere along the evolutionary path we humans lost our instincts which is why we need calorie count labels to know what we are eating
I believe both the films really point out to the same thing: its about an individual, and his decision to eat, drink, exercise and lead a healthy life. We have two examples:
1. Spurlock, who exclusively ate McD food for a month, without altering his lifestyle too much.
2. Whaley, who exclusively ate McD food for a month, and started a disciplined exercise regimen.
Take home message is that McD food is not good for you, but the responsibility lies with YOU not with McD.
I cannot say about the US, but here, in the UK, McD has seriously overhauled their menu during the course of this year. The dominant colour on the menu-boards in the McD restaurants is now green, with a variety of salad offerings and a lot of grilled meat offerings. As a result, the overall calorific values of their foods has reduced drastically since the time Spurlock tried his stunt.
In any case, Spurlock’s stunt was just that!… a stunt!! It did not have much of a utility value since it would only be a fool who would do something like that in real life.
And of course, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to do something similar in India… eating out every single day. Imagine eating all those rich, spicy, laden-with-oil curries for a month!!
Even an animal knows the kind of food that is good for it and has an instinctive avoidance of…
Humans are the only species that take a psychedelic drug like LSD twice [which apparently gives you “psychedelic” highs as well as lows, called trips.] We do not have a linear risk function. We value pleasure much much above pain; and are willing to undergo ridiculous amounts of pain for a small amount of pleasure, especially immediate pleasure.
The argument made by libertarians is that this is a case for personal responsibility, and that Spurlock et al are raving idiots yearning for extra-personal control.
I beg to differ.
An individual’s behavior is partly due to his risk function (which itself, as I’ve said in my previous comment is faulty) and partly due to societal “acceptability”. What if I’d say that while the state should not interfere with the risk functions of people, but should try to alter the “social fabric”
behind an activity. e.g. smoking is considered dangerous, everybody knows that. But it was only when non-smoking invaded the social fabric did it make any noticable difference to the behaviors of people.
Note that I am not reducing the problem to saying people are idiots - protect them. I mean, most people ARE idiots, but what I am saying is that even those who aren’t, base their decisions on more than just risk functions.
if nothing, the ’stunt’ has forced MCD to think? Imagine ‘and do you want salad with that?’ And, McD is changing their logo from the golden arches to a question mark. according to adrants. this has started with the UK… and if the film forces people to think - the consumers (literally!!) about what they are eating, then can we say some good has come out of it?
No CK, no animal can “lose” its instincts, especially ones so basic as feeding itself and taking care of its young. What humans have managed is to develop intelligence which helps them go beyond their instincts. The instincts are always there. Accepting that you do not have sufficient intelligence to decide what you eat will put you beneath my contempt.
I agree that it is entirely down to the individual choices made by people with regard to their fitness, with a few (rare) exceptions.
I don’t think Spurlock himself would disagree.
He wasn’t trying to be moderate. He was showing what can happen when someone follows a terrible diet and has a terrible lifestyle. Is that unusual in America? I lived in Philadelphia for two years and based on what I saw, no, I utterly believe that it’s possible, that it happens, and that it leads to what Spurlock points out.
But blaming McDonalds is wrong - it’s the choice to eat there that’s to blame - and by doing what he has, Spurlock has probably driven that point home quite well.
On another note : I utterly disrespect your insinuation in your 15th Oct Update. To imply that he lied is to throw mud and an accusation without knowing if it will stick. It’s a cheap shot and you should have risen above repeating it on your website. Argue against Spurlock all you want, but accusing him of lying requires proof or at least some sort of evidence, not insinuation based on information you haven’t received.
NLVP, I didn’t imply that Spurlock lied. Just that he was careless. And that made me question his credibility. If you’re going to document your experience it’s important not to leave out important pieces like receipts for your food purchases at McDonalds!
I went to the debunking link you recommended, and (suprise!) it’s “about us” page mentions that
How odd that a site funded by McDonalds would take issue with Supersize Me!
Hi Jamie, My original post on the issue did mention this point in a disclaimer.
As I frequently find out, people like to emphasize what they believe in. I notice you chose to ignore the next two sentences in the paragraph you quoted. I’ll repeat them here.
The emphasis is mine. (Just as the emphasis on McDonalds in your quote was yours and not in the original)
Truth in Fitness, of course has no sponsor. It is run out of the personal funds of Chazz Weaver.
Yazad, ‘not necessarily’ is such a convenient expression, isn’t it?! ;-)
In this context, it is quite clear what it means.
I am all in favor of giving consumers choice and allowing them to analyze thier own risk tolerance but in order to do that they have to be provided with the information needed to make the choice. Currently McDonald’s does not provide calories information on their products - easiest thing to do - just put the number of calories/ gms of fat etc alongside the price - McDonald’s has not chosen to do this which leads one to suspect that in fact they do not REALLY want consumers to know what they are eating - which in turn amounts to fraud.
The information is only available online. See the following form
I tried calling the hotline number - it is the same number used for all McDonalds business - including repors for quality failures, to claim prizes and get information on proposals. After 5 minutes of pucnhing through the options - I finally got through to the ‘Nutritional Center’. I was advised that all their representatives were currently busy and that my call would be answered in the order received. 10 minutes later I was advised that that the next available representative would be with me in approximately 25 minutes and that I should please hold. Naturally I hung up.
So is this how a corporation (with the financial clout of MD) should make information about its product available.
In effect when I go to McDonald’s and decide to have a Big Mac and fries I have no idea what I am eating. Yes I do have a choice but in order to make that choice it is MD’s responsibility to provide me with the information.
I think with the money they have, it is not asking too much that they spend about $20 per store and get little plastic stickers showing the calories per product - or prehaps they don’t want people to know the following when they order a Big Mac Meal
Big Mac - 600 calories (33% of daily recommended calorie intake)
Medium French Fries - 450 calories, 22%
Medium Milk Shake - 580 calories, 25%
Thats 1630 calories or 80% of the recommended calories intake for a whole day in 1 meal.
No wonder they don’t want customers to know that information - would you eat there if you knew. By all means continue serving your products - just provide your customers with the information upfront and honest - don’t make them go to the web do calculations or put them on hold for 25 minutes to find out whats in the product you are selling - a simple 5c sticker is all it would take.
So CK,
Don’t eat at McDonalds.
If you went to McDonald’s under the impression that it was healthy, CK, you are a victim of your own stupidity.
McDonald’s is only committing “fraud” if it tells you the food is healthy when it isn’t. They don’t do any such thing.
Ignorance can never be used as a defense. If you robbed someone and got caught, could you successfully fight your case with a “I didn’t know robbery was wrong because nobody sent me a copy of the rule book” defense?
This is an issue of corporate responsibility - not of choice. The corporation has a duty to inform consumers of the ill effects of its products. Decades ago cigarettes did not have warning labels on them - today they are required - cigarettes were not banned but all that was done was to make consumers aware of the dangers. You and I know that eating at McDonalds is not health - but there are millions who don’t and think nothing of having the meal I described above twice a day.
Witholding information is as much fraud as providing misinformation. Simple question - why does MD’s make it so difficult to find out what the calories in their products are? As I said all it takes is a 5c sticker next to their product and I will let them off the hook - but they refuse to do even that. Why? Can they not afford it? They can give you a wind up toy that costs at least $2 with every happy meal but can’t spent 5c on a sticker informing their customers what’s in the product they are consuming - and in ypical libertarian fashion - McDoanld’s is good and the consumer is the stupid one - as I said there is always a bias towards corporations in all libertarian arguements - a corporation can do no wrong, is never greedy, never tries to rip consumers off - it is just the stupidity of the people and the big horrible govt. that does it all. BTW Yazad - still waiting for those example on ‘when corps do bad’
CK, If you think that McDonalds is irresponsible
Don’t eat at McDonalds
and
Tell all your friends not to eat at McDonalds.
Ck, my promised piece on corporate “evil” on the weekend. No time till then. In the meanwhile, do read Ravi’s excellent riposte.
BTW, should this calorie chart be put up only by McDonalds (or other big fastfood joints)? If I run a small hamburger deli should I also have to put up the calorie chart? Should everyone selling food have to put up a calorie chart? Can you be a little more clear on the rule you are proposing?
The rule I am proposing is not without precedent. Every pre-made food item in the US is required by law to have the ingredients used as well as the calorie count on its packaging. This includes eery single item you can buy at a supermarket (including interestingly a bottle of water where all the information reads 0).
Look at eve non-ffood products - buy a pair of headphones and you will have the full specifications on teh cuver like colts, wattage etc.
This labelling only encourages the free-market and does not stiffle it. Sure its not so good for the corporation - but from a consumer point of view it is invaluable in layingout all the available choices.
That’s interesting CK. So every other prepackaged food in the US has to display the information in the format you are describing?
Are the consumers reading it?
If, as you are claiming, they are, then they must be expecting it as a norm. So when they don’t see it on a McDonalds food item, don’t they see something amiss?
The only reason why they are not noticing anything amiss is that most people simply don’t read what is written on the wrapper right?
Now when faced with the failure of regulation I am sure your natural instinct is to ask for more regulation. May be you’ll want them to put in BIG LETTERS warnings to the effect that “EATING FOOD MAY MAKE YOU FAT”
But you’ve promised to let them off the hook if they just adhere to the minimal standards that you’ve asked for. I am sure everyone will be just as satisfied.
Have you ever been to the US Ravikiran? How do you know consumers are not reading the labels on the packages - all the people I know always read the packages - this includes people with diabetes (calculating their allowable sugar intake), people on special diets (Atkins etc), people who have dietary restrictions for religious reasons (Jews, Muslims etc), people with. allergies, and people like me who just want to know what it is that they are putting into their bodies.
These rules apply for all PREPACKAGED food and NOT for packaged food. I think you have made a huge leap of faith saying because people don’t miss it at MD’s - it is an example of a failure of regulation - actually it is an extremely successful regulation and the food companies actually love it because it removes the liability on their part - if somebody is allergic to one of their ingredients its not their fault as they provided a detailed list on their packaging.
Yes maybe a label like you suggested but I prefer just putting a calorie count.
A friend of mine from Malawi(Africa for the geographically challenged)told me that when warning labels on cigarettes were introduced (saying that cigarettes caused lung cancer), the locals stopped buying Marlboro and other western cigarettesa and would go to the shop and ask for the cigarettes that didn’t give you cancer (the local ones who didn’t require the labels). You can argue that people are smart enough to figure out what is good for them but as history shows us they are not. In fact in the 20’s it was a popular belief that smoking increased man’s virility.
So to conclude - yes a simple label showing the calorie count will suffice and and I bet you we will see it less than 2 years at all MDs.
CK, I somehow knew that this is what it would come down to. So the labeling requirements DO NOT apply to packaged (I am guessing that this means food served out of a restaurant) food right? So it is NOT industry practice to put up detailed calory information on the wrappers right? I mean, other players in the industry, such as Subway, Burger King etc. DO NOT put the calory information on their wrappers right? Because if they did, customers would still notice the lack on McDonalds’ wrappers.
So by not giving this information, and by implying that McDonalds was unique in its practice of not putting calory information on its wrappers, you have committed fraud haven’t you? I know you haven’t exactly lied. But someone who hasn’t visited the US and doesn’t know the arcanities of the difference between packaged food and prepackaged food would have been easily mislead.
I am holding you to the same standards you held McDonalds to. You did not give the full context. You selectively presented information which made McDonalds look bad. You said that the only reason why they aren’t printing the information is that they don’t want customers to know. You didn’t mention that it is not industry practice to do it.
So why should I trust you on anything else?
Ravikiaran - I thought it was understood that McDonald’s was only being used as a posterchild for the entire fast food industry - simply because it is the biggest and the most prolific. I am using McDonald’s in the generic sense as one would when using Xerox to mean photcopying. Nobody is saying that MD’s is worse than Burger King, White Castle, Bojangles…the list is endless. Interestingly there is one fast food chain - Subway which does provide a calorie count with all of its food.
So people who want to count calories can go to Subway right? The market seems to be nicely taking care of the problem by providing customers with a choice. Why are you worried?
Missing the point again. By all means let the market operate - let the people choose but give them the information to do so. I cannot understand why you are against a fundamental component of a free market - information.
MD and others are making money off the fact that customers do not intrinsically know the calorie count of their food - and in most cases will never find out about it. So they are in fact denying the customers the right to know what they are consuming.
This is highlighted by the fact there are more that 127 million significantly overweight people in the US out of which 60 million are calssified as obese.
It is not McDonald’s falult that these people are overweight but it is there responsibility to at least let these people know what it is that they are eating.
I thought the entire libertarian model hingled on the spirit of ‘corporate reponsibility’ - from the environment to business practices - in fact the deregulation that you proudly hail dpends on corporates being more responsible. This is clearly a case of corporates being irresponsible - this is the least one can ask of them - don’t change your business practices, don’t change your product - just tell us how many calories are in your product - but they won’t do this simple thing whcih costs them almost nothing - and yet you are on their side saying it is interfereing with the free-market? I think it is the corporates in this case who are perverting the spirit of the free market by denying consumers information.
I’m not sure what country CK is posting from, but in the US, nutritional information is readily available within McDonald’s restaurants without going on line, and has been for at least a decade, if not much more. Stores have the complete nutritional information posted on a wall, as well as take-home pamphlets containing the entire menu and nutritional information. Stores have even begun to put the information on the backs of tray liners to make sure people take a look.
I would never eat at Mcdonalds. What disusts me even more is how many people do eat there.
Macs…what is it all about. Well its not about calories its about disease and each of you are subjected to disease each and every time you eat at one of these establishments. Here is the deal….sick cattle are being slaughtered and put in the hamburger meat you are eating in all of these fast food resturants. Cattle are sick by nature and 80% of all disease can be traced to cattle and the dairy products you are consuming. I do not see anyone laying on their backs sucking off a udder in any field and yet you have been sold this concept and that dairy is beneficial. Under no circumstance should any human be consuming any dairy products of any kind. Why? When your mother weaned you…that was it ….never again did you ever need a dairy product. Each of you have been lied to.. like sheep and you have stepped into the world of disease promoted for financial gain for several industries. Those making the poison called fast food and those fixing the disease…your doctors. 80% of all cattle have the HLTV-1 virus that causes leukemia and is responsible for many disease progressions. In fact all disease pathogens can be found in these two products and each of you will suffer from this consumption in later years of life as these pathogens lay dormant until your immune system fails and allows them loose in your system. We are talking about billions of dollars and you are the commodity. I wish someone had told this to me when I was twenty…..but no one did and the FDA allowed it for all of us. Why you say…money…..and its power. Here is the deal….big farmers put little farmers out of business. Big farmers deplete the soil and scientist gets involved. Synthetic fertilzers are used to stimulate growth. These nitates go to ocean create “Dead Zones”. Global weather changes drought or rain….spike-up nitrates in crops. Crops processed and you eat them..auto immune disease progressions begin. Animal feed crops spike-up nitrates and are fed to cattle etc.. Cattle get sick do not grow and dairy cows produce less milk. Scientist gets involved and pumps hormones into cattle to help growth and increase milk production. Dairy cows get more infections in udder and they use antibiotics to solve mastitis. This milk and drug usage are processed in dairy products and you consume them. Your gut and any antibiotic use allows transfer of pathogen to your body….you and your children will be sick in the future. These two products hamburger and dairy have the worse lipids and heart disease is the result. Every cancer is pathogen driven and every lesion or tumor can be traced to these two products. Breast cancer is a direct result of these two products..dairy products absorb radiation and these mastitis cattle infections are giving women breast cancer by consuming dairy products. The lipids and the attached synthetic vitamin D…which is really a hormone then change the immune signalling process and carry the food needed for the invading pathogen…how nice.
Progress…you can now work longer….you can now eat on the road……you need not have meals at home and promote health and family values…..you can now be more productive for your government….make more money….any create more taxes for them to collect. You are feeding two industries working hand in hand to take your money in the future when you are sick. How nice. You should all start bahhhing….. like the sheep you really are.
Obewan