Talk:Super Size Me

Locked article

This article seems to be one that has the potential to be heavily moderated and censored by any people working for McDonald's that want to tone down the detail on the negative effects of their food so shouldn't this article be reviewed to ensure it is completely unbiased then locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.0.190 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article is just as likely to be biased against McDonalds by those who have an axe to grind about corporations. McDonalds has been pretty scrupulous about asking employees to keep a "hands off" approach to things like this.MarcMontoni (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Budget?

Article currently states the film budget was "$2,000,000" which does make sense even if that figure is inflated with post-release advertising. Other sources around the internet seem to indicate a $65,000 production budget. A B C and IMDB "estimates" $300k D. I will be changing the budget to $65K in a moment, please discuss here if that causes disagreement. aerotheque (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

This article - the first part of it, in particular, is written more like a movie review or fan comment than an encyclopedic article. Thorswitch (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this truly unbiased?

"Various similar experiments were made in response to Super Size Me, in an effort to provide alternative scenarios or refute the impressions made by the film. These experiments, however, were mainly balanced diets and healthy eating programs, capable of demonstrating that it is possible to eat from the McDonald's menu without upsetting one's health. At the same time, Super Size Me and similar experiments fall short of illustrating the healthiness of a typical McDonald's consumer's choice (the quintessential "burger, Coke and fries" meal). Alternate studies do not address the alterations that occurred to Spurlock's blood chemistry, but Super Size Me did not show that this was a special characteristic of fast-food diets, and not high-calorie diets in general or the lack of exercise. Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether if it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's."

Does this even make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68Kustom (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that it not only doesn't make sense, but lacks appropriate sourcing and is clearly biased. It needs to either be removed or made to fit within accepted standards 24.188.213.121 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative experiments

This list of alternative experiments is getting way too long, too descriptive, and out of hand.

• I think one option would be to trim it down to a couple of paragraphs in prose that talks about alternative experiments and gives a handful of examples without going into a ton of detail on any of them.

• Another option would be to remove any that don't fall under certain criteria (I would suggest experiments where people ate X "bad" food for X days without exercising), as I think there are too many experiments listed that don't compare directly to this one (not exercising v exercising, which is comparing apples to oranges).

• One more option would be to only include those experiments that came about as a direct result of this film (for instance, the last one was performed because there was criticism about handing pizza out at a gym, which clearly isn't a result of this film and, rather, one individual's personal experiment).

I'm suggesting these changes for two reasons. The first is that the list will be never ending. There will always be people doing these little experiments just for fun, even if the haven't seen the movie. It's too difficult to keep current. The second is that the "criteria" is getting stretched a bit too much. Someone who works out over an hour a day five days a week is obviously going to be able to handle more than someone who doesn't exercise at all, which is what Spurlock did. What's next? We include an experiment where someone ate only lettuce for thirty days, exercised every day, and lost weight? A bit extreme? Yes. But my point is...where is the cutoff for what gets included?

I just figured I'd throw that out there. If I don't see any dissenting opinions or other suggestions in a week or so, I'll probably trim it down and do some sort of combination of the three options I suggested. --13² 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fathead, a response to supersize me

Tom Naughton created his own documentary in response to Supersize Me. He addresses every argument in super size me in defense of Mcdonalds and other fast food corporations with the help of a number of nutritionists, medical doctors, and scientists. Link to the site is here [1]. Should this be listed in the article at all? 76.230.124.121 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I've added a sentence with a link to the Houston Chronicle article on the movie. Also, I fixed an obvious math error in the article. There used to be a WP article on Fat Head, but it was deleted; perhaps we should try to get it restored.TVC 15 (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fat Head is an article 50.182.180.55 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Changes to produce a better article versus a movie review

There's a bit of a movie review about the article rather than an encyclopedia article. I noticed that people have had very good points about changes, and would like to incorporate some of those without changing the truths about the film. I've seen the movie several times, and would like to see some points explained in more detail, while eliminating some very minor points.Pat44 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Original intentions"

In the first part of the "Alternative experiments section" it says: "Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's." But in the "Criticism and statistical notes section" it says that "no one was found who ate at McDonald's three times a day" (as Spurlock did). If the latter statement is correct then Spurlock failed in his original intention, and it's hard to see the point of stating it (uncritically) in the article. Kronocide (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Salads Statement seems Factually Incorrect

In the section on "Bowling for Morgan" it says: "However, Caswell's film depicted him eating many Premium Salads from McDonald's that were not available during the making of Super Size Me." However, if you look at the Wikipedia page on McDonald's products it clearly shows McDonald's has had salads since 1985. I'm going to remove this misleading statement since a salad is a salad. JettaMann (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and reintroduced the statement. A salad is not a salad when they aren't the same kinds of salad. A Premium Salad at McDonald's, which is meant to be a full meal, is not the same as a small salad, which was what they had previously. Further, what few small salads they did have certainly weren't pushed by the company or even available everywhere.

Finally, there is nothing factually inaccurate OR misleading about the statement. The fact is that those Premium Salads, which were heavily eaten in Caswell's film, and now take up a large portion of the current menu, were not introduced until after Spurlock's experiment, which is exactly what that statement is saying. Considering he had to eat everything on the menu at least once, something like the lack of those salads makes a big impact. --13² 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some basic fact checking is in order for the claim that McDonald's introduced the premium salads only in response to Spurlock's film. I can attest myself that is a false claim, because when I worked at a site in the northern Virginia area in 1996, I bought their premium salads just about every day for several weeks. If you want to dismiss history out of hand, maybe you should confirm the introduction dates of those premium salads directly with the company.MarcMontoni (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said the film caused McDonald's to introduce the salads, nor did I ever imply it. Unlike yourself, I'm not using any original research or personal experiences to build my case. My timeline may have been off, but I did not insinuate the film was a direct cause for the salads, despite your assumptions. If you want to dismiss my comments out of hand, maybe you should read more carefully to confirm what I actually said. By the way, the premium salads were introduced in March 2003, not 1996. --13² 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think i see the disconnect. You interchange "Premium Salad" with "premium salad". One way of saying it is a brand name (with caps); the other is a generic description (lowercase). How many people know that McDonald's calls its entree salads "Premium Salads"? A reasonable person would say a "premium salad" was simply a generic term to describe a salad with extra stuff on it.

In any case, like I said, more research would be good. McDonald's has indeed offered meal-sized salads for a long time -- long before 2003, and long before 1996. Here's a YouTube with a McDonald's commercial from 1990, showing what is, in all but name, a "premium salad": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KILT2HQFP4 . Here is another that advertises a chicken breast salad from 1986: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3edSaML-8_g . We can agree that, McDonald's earlier offerings weren't *named* "Premium Salads". But in fact they are extremely similar to what the company offers now. A few ounces of lettuce, grilled chicken, tomatoes, onions, a radish slice, and some croutons, and a packet of dressing. How is it different than what is offered now? One ounce? Two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMontoni (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(new name, same user) I made no disconnect. In fact, that disconnect was made by yourself. You labeled a salad that was never referred to as a "premium salad" as such (even in your own sources here, neither salad was referred to as a "premium salad"). It does not matter what was or was not on them. Unless McDonald's specifically referred to them as such, it really doesn't matter whether or not you think they were "premium" or not. This is original research, plain and simple. -ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, Ace. It wouldn't hurt to assume good faith. Read your words again and try to consider how others might be hearing you say something different than you think you are. You made several claims above that are unsourced. For instance: "A Premium Salad at McDonald's, which is meant to be a full meal, is not the same as a small salad, which was what they had previously." So what *did* they have previously? What weight were they, what are the weights now, and where are the references for both? I gave you a couple of links that showed salads from years ago that look an awful lot like what McDonald's has now.

I'm not really sure why you're even challenging a personal experience -- this is the talk page, not the article. One could say your claim about "small salads" being the only offering before Super Size Me came out could be taken as personal experience or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcMontoni (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Weight in kilograms?

I find it very unlikely that his weight was exactly 84.1413 kg at the beginning of the diet. I'm changing it to 84.1 kg, hope no one disagrees. I see this type of 'rounding error' all the time in subtitling in Sweden, "he was about 6 foot tall" gets translated as "he was about 182.9 centimeters tall". Different circumstances, but same problem. JohanK (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased Or Assumptive Language?

Under the "Alternative experiments" subhead are two questionable sentences, but I don't feel comfortable changing them because I'm not entirely sure it IS biased. They are 1) "At the same time, Super Size Me and similar experiments fall short of illustrating the healthiness of a typical McDonald's consumer's choice..." and 2) "Note that Spurlock's original intention was to show that a typical American's food intake at McDonald's was unhealthy, not whether if it was possible to have a healthy meal at McDonald's." The first sentence insinuates that most people make healthy decisions - that's a little, I dunno, sneaky - and the second sentence claims to know what Spurlock's intention was, without any citation proving it, even though it's likely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianPBNJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, even though I agree with the statements. However, I'm an IP and they'll remove my edits quick, thinking that I'm vandalising the page by removing the unsourced information. Neither statement (especially the first) is NPOV. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't care who's removing information if the information is unsourced, though if you wanted to err on the side of caution you could tag the information as needing a citation, then wait a few weeks before removing it. Alternately, if you explain what you're doing in your edit summary I can't imagine anyone assuming vandalism. In any event, I've tagged that section for containing original research...after a reasonable time period I'll likely end up pruning the information myself, but for now I don't see any harm in giving editors time to improve the sourcing for the information. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully Disagreed

I respectfully disagree with everything written in this article. I think McDonalds isn't as bad as this dude says it is. Ronald is cool and he helps people with money who need it. I eat McDonalds and I am really skinny so hes a liar its not really bad for you like he sed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.185.255 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. It CAN be bad if you eat it all the time due to it's high fat and cholesterol content but if you eat it once a week it's not that bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.155.98 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you actaully watched the movie he ate it at least 3 times a day for 30 days gained 25 pounds and all other sorts of stuff happened to him because of the diet. Most people dont eat it that often, but for some people it is not that far off. If they are eating it that often it isnt a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Claim of "COI" edit

Seems like edits trying to make articles about controversial corporations more NPOV sometimes result in invocations of the "conflict of Interest" bogeyman. It pays to occasionally remember this part of the COI policy: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." In this article's case, it's a biased movie about a corporation. To present the movie as a scientific experiment not subject to debate would be a disservice. MarcMontoni (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You have admitted that you were an employee of McDonald's and have edited this article and talk page indicating a clear bias toward the company. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. The fact that you're acting like experiments only tangentially related, but put McDonald's in a more positive light, are legitimate, only helps establish the conflict. --ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You misread me. I have *never* worked for McDonald's, either as an employee or as a contractor. I was a network technician, a "contractor", and the site I worked at was a nonprofit agency a couple of blocks away from the McDonald's I referred to. The McD's was the closest place to eat. Had I meant I worked *at* the McDonalds itself, I would have said "... when I worked at a McDonald's in the northern Virginia area ...". Contractors like myself refer to job locations as "sites".

I have no connection with the company other than the fact that I occasionally purchase their products.

And once again, Spurlock's work was not an "experiment". An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a hypothesis, or to determine the efficacy of something previously untried." http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+experiment This movie is not an experiment in any sense, unless the experiment was to test whether eating too much food makes you fat and lethargic. Well, Duh. MarcMontoni (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that the COI policy refers to COI in the *present* tense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Financial . Even if I had been an employee of McDonald's 15 years ago in 1996, that does not indicate a COI *now*. But like I said -- I have *never* worked for McDonald's, either as an employee or as a contractor. MarcMontoni (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Spurlock's film follows a hi 30-day period from February 1 to March 2, 2003 during which he eats only McDonald's food."

Looks like someone snuck a little "hi" in there, unless there's some other meaning to it. I can't change it because the page is protected, but if someone else could that'd be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.88.130 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Willis

Someone please mention Wesley Willis in this article, after all the infamous song "Rock and Roll McDonalds is in it". I would myself, but I don't want it to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

criticism

the Criticism section is all about movies made in response, shouldn't it contain reviews from critics? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's a random sentence thrown in that says "11111 he gets really fat" right after the paragraph about 9.26 Big Macs, but it doesn't show up in the "edit" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.71.171 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Science

the new scientist reported about a study undertaken in sweden, the text can be read there: http://skylertanner.com/2010/04/30/supersize-me-revisted-under-lab-conditions/ wasn't the study recognized in the US?

the study was also subject in a scientific journal: (of the British Society of Gastroenterology) title: Fast-food-based hyper-alimentation can induce rapid and profound elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase in healthy subjects ;) http://gut.bmj.com/content/57/5/649.full Saviansn (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (from old europe ;)

Sourcewatch as a reliable source?!?

Sourcewatch is user-edited, making it unacceptable as a reliable source (much like how a Wikipedia article cannot cite another Wikipedia article). Furthermore, it's a liberal organization with a mission statement that says Sourcwatch tries to "work to influence public opinion and public policy." Hardly sounds like a credible, non-biases source. It should be removed as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.35.20 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Size Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fast-food-is-addictive-in-same-way-as-drugs-say-scientists-607073.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Super Size Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512124655/http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue9/supersizeme.html to http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue9/supersizeme.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mcdonalds.co.uk/pages/global/supersize.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supersizeme-thedebate.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Defamation

This is a propaganda film. It is trying to defame McDonald's, and take away their pureness. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Er, what pureness did McDonald's ever have to get taken away, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Where should this reporting be incorporated?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-alarm-1527114255

Rsterbal (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

source for statement

There is a statement at the end of the Findings section which explains how Mcdonalds denied their health marketing had anything to do with the movie. There is no source for this statement and I was wondering if someone could find and add one? Or does this not require a source? --RadicalSigh (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Why no real scientific sources? Why no evidence revealed since movie's release?

Why are there no links or discussion from real scientific sources proving Spurlocks claims of massive weight gain were a fraud? Why is there no section on his alcohol abuse causing the liver damage which was falsely blamed upon McDonald's milk shakes? Given that such sources are very easy to locate e.g., sample links below from Google, it would seem that the article is locked only to protect Spurlock by continuing to promote his lies and fraud, and hence violates WP:NPOV.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2005/08/25/spurlock-food-scare-a-super-size-scam https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2018/05/is-super-size-me-a-big-fat-lie/ https://www.thefix.com/morgan-spurlock-sober https://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-documentaries-that-were-shockingly-full-crap.html