and


One fasted in protest. The other ate only McDonald's in protest.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, which one would damage our bodies more?

McDonald's would probably lead to eventual death (due to health issues), but fasting indefinitely would result in a much sooner death.

And possibly the more painful death, I might add.

I'd guess it would be easier to recover from being undernourished than having blocked arteries and such.

In the movie he was only a few weeks from permanently damaging his body by the time it ended...

Supposedly. However he wasn't eating at McDonald's in protest. He did it as an experiment demonstrating the effects of eating nothing but McDonald's over a thirty day period. I thought the results were interesting but I think he exagerated abit in at least one area. I think the overall experiment is certainly an exageration as well but I do think it has merrit.

How is it an exaggeration? He performed an experiment, and compiled his results into a documentary. It was based completely on facts and truths.

The only way to exaggerate would be to take away all of its credit.

LOL!

It's exaggerated because while he proves McDonalds is unhealthy, most people wouldn't eat McDonalds every day. So in reality, McDonalds will cause much less health problems than depicted.

Of course they wouldn't, and he didn't act as if they would. He just ate it every day to see what would happen.

Still don't see how you call that an exaggeration.

Sure it shows what might happen if someone ate McDonalds every day for thirty days. The facts are real, and the experiment has good amount of merit. It's not exaggerated in what happened and the health issues he faced. It's exaggerated, I believe, in the "protest against McDonalds" because, while it shows the health risks of eating the food over and over, no one really shares a lifestyle that close to that fast food resturant (no one reallys eats the stuff 30 days in a row).

You're wrong there echoman. I know families that go there literally 5/7 nights a week. That may not be everyday, but that's quite a bit...especially for a FAMILY. I mean a bachelor, I can kind of understand...but a family?

But do those "families" eat nothing but McDonalds for a whole month? Do they eat the food for breakfast, lunch and dinner days? Families can go to the place often for lunch or dinner, along with many other people in American society. But they are not taking it "to the extreme" and devoting themselves in such a way. Sure, they may face health problems with their diet sooner or later, but not to the extent and health problems, under such a short time, like this man. While the man shows what could happen and brings attention to the issues of the fast-food industry, his experiment level is at such a high degree that few people might share such an impact from the food.

The only reason he did it to such an extent was that it's a lot easier and a lot faster to get results that way. In the long run, the effects can't/won't be much different (thinking about it logically).

But doing over time, the body, if given the chance, can recover (from excerise, eating healtier foods, and so on). If someone eats a hamburger, they can, if they are willing, to burn it off. Or they can choose to do nothing about the impact of munching down hamburgers after hamburgers (while continuing with their daily lives). Sure, some guy can have the conditions like this man from years of eating at McDonalds (and doing nothing about it). But time matters. The man who eats hambugers for years would be a better subject for portraying the effects of fast-foods more than the man who did this unusual lifestyle in this experiment.

It's obviously exagerated because few people would eat all 3 disgustingly fatty meals at McD's. A real experiment would have been for him to eat what he did trying to get negative results and another person trying to eat sensibly from the menu (salads and whatever else isn't total crap) and see what negative results ensued.

I also think he exagerated his "non-existent" sex life.

I don't dispute the results of his "experiment" but he set out to get those results.

I think the 'salads' provided at McDonalds are almost as unhealthy as the hamburgers.

If you read the health charts in the place, the salads ARE more unhealthy

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.categories.nutrition.index.html#3

On the average, their salads are healthier.

Of course, they pile on all that bacon, chicken, and dressing, and its health value decreases exponentially.

This movie and these facts haven't affected me much. I'm less partial to McDonald's fries, but I will probably go back eventually.

Ummm, Why do we need a movie to tell us that eating McDonalds will screw up your health?

The whole thing seemed pretty usless to me.

Exactly. But if someone wants to eat healthy at McDs it is certainly possible. Practically any item you order there can be prepared how you want it. That is you can delete bread, mayo, etc from a sandwich or skip dressing or crispy chicken on a salad. God forbid someone simply order a salad with lite dressing and some grilled chicken.



And there really is no need to infer they're not legitimate salads. There just as much a salad as something someone would make at home. Any salad can be healthy or fatty depending on what you choose to put on it.