T Nation

Super Size Me Part II?

A Swedish university has replicated Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me junk food binge under lab conditions :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1866485,00.html

What’s interesting is that they doubled calorie intake for a month. They gained 5 to 15% of their weight.

Very interesting, but I’d like to see one done without the “milkshakes”. In other words see what happens even with all that fat if you remove the colossal quantities of refined suger from the mix.

–Tiribulus->

I don’t understand the point of forcing them to take in 6,000cals a day. I eat about that much when all out gaining AND lifting. The problem most people have isn’t even eating several times a day. they starve themselves by skipping breakfast, have a light lunch or a few cans of soda for the caffeine and then gorge themselves to sleep at night. The p roblem with them isn’t just the food but their reduced metabolisms and inactivity. This study seems to be pushing its agenda.

Unless these kids are 300lbs bodybuilders taking a few weeks off from the gym…OF COURSE THEY WILL GET FATTER. Meanwhile, some guy who is hyperactive, already carrying a large amount of muscle and lifts weights might maintain his body weight on that much.

So why force students to get fat just to show that eating too much makes you fat? We knew that already.

Exactly. I don’t get it.

I guess it is to be looked at as just a stunt, like a somewhat removed version of a Jackass stunt.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

So why force students to get fat just to show that eating too much makes you fat? We knew that already.[/quote]

There’s also been people who’ve lost weight and improved lipid profiles during a month on mcdonald’s. There’s movies in the works about that too.

McDonald’s for a year? Surely one would die 2 months in.
http://www.mcles.com/

Even fat dudes are doing the mcdonald’s diet.
http://www.mymcdiet.com/

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand the point of forcing them to take in 6,000cals a day. I eat about that much when all out gaining AND lifting. The problem most people have isn’t even eating several times a day. they starve themselves by skipping breakfast, have a light lunch or a few cans of soda for the caffeine and then gorge themselves to sleep at night. The p roblem with them isn’t just the food but their reduced metabolisms and inactivity. This study seems to be pushing its agenda.

.[/quote]

Finally, someone who sees things as they are. I can’t count how many people I come across who are overweight, and do the exact thing you talk about. They’re not overeating, they’re malnourished and taking in tons of sugar and processed flours.

I should have posted the following extract along with the link :

Indeed, Nystrom claims that for some people, eating 10% more will lead to their metabolism increasing at the same level. The extra energy will be burned off as body heat during sleep.
[…]
That’s why these kind of studies have to be carried out, he says: “If you only look at the already overweight, you’ll only do research on those with least resistance to calories, so to speak.”

The results Morgan Spurlock got in hiss film was more the result of inactivity than his diet. He’s a New Yorker who normally walked everywhere who switched to taking cabs everywhere.

Here’s a body builder who did the McDonalds diet for a month while continuing a heavy exercise & weight training routine. His result? Lower BF AND colesterol!
//www.truthinfitness.org/projects/mcDonalds/journal.html

Yes, X, we do know that you eat big
Yes, X, we do know that you lift heavy.
Good for you.

Spurlock’s documentary wasn’t only an attack against McDonalds, but an attack on a type of lifestyle in general. If it weren’t, he wouldn’t have made any changes to his exercise regime.

You can’t tell me that you can get all the nutrients that your body needs to function efficiently from McDonalds. All the pesticides, hormones, antibotics, etc would send ANYONE around the bend.

What I’d like to know is how Swedish control over food production differs from the American control. Just as a guess, regulations over what a person can do to a cow, chicken or crop in Sweden are probably a lot tighter than that in the US.

[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Yes, X, we do know that you eat big
Yes, X, we do know that you lift heavy.
Good for you.

Spurlock’s documentary wasn’t only an attack against McDonalds, but an attack on a type of lifestyle in general. If it weren’t, he wouldn’t have made any changes to his exercise regime.

You can’t tell me that you can get all the nutrients that your body needs to function efficiently from McDonalds. All the pesticides, hormones, antibotics, etc would send ANYONE around the bend.

[/quote]

We already knew that, americans just don’t give a shit.

I think we should prove something else that people already know, like eating nothing makes you skinny and unhealthy.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand the point of forcing them to take in 6,000cals a day. I eat about that much when all out gaining AND lifting. The problem most people have isn’t even eating several times a day. they starve themselves by skipping breakfast, have a light lunch or a few cans of soda for the caffeine and then gorge themselves to sleep at night. The p roblem with them isn’t just the food but their reduced metabolisms and inactivity. This study seems to be pushing its agenda.

.

Finally, someone who sees things as they are. I can’t count how many people I come across who are overweight, and do the exact thing you talk about. They’re not overeating, they’re malnourished and taking in tons of sugar and processed flours.[/quote]

man i see this all the time at work too… granola bar mid-morning, a soup OR pastry with coffee for lunch, and thats it… Or another fat guy at work “trying” to lose weight, who sees me taking MRPs before the gym and decides to take that for lunch, only he doesnt want too much carbs so he ends up buying just a protein powder with no carbs. For a meal. This same fat fuck decides to lift weights but quits after 2 weeks and decides he wants to do swimming instead.

In the meantime, I literally stuff my self at work, and they say stuff like “ahhhh i wish i had your metabolism, youre lucky”. What do you think they do when they get home? Bake fuckin cookies or stuff themselves on crakers. Then they bring the fucking cookies at work…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand the point of forcing them to take in 6,000cals a day. I eat about that much when all out gaining AND lifting. The problem most people have isn’t even eating several times a day. they starve themselves by skipping breakfast, have a light lunch or a few cans of soda for the caffeine and then gorge themselves to sleep at night. The p roblem with them isn’t just the food but their reduced metabolisms and inactivity. This study seems to be pushing its agenda.

Unless these kids are 300lbs bodybuilders taking a few weeks off from the gym…OF COURSE THEY WILL GET FATTER. Meanwhile, some guy who is hyperactive, already carrying a large amount of muscle and lifts weights might maintain his body weight on that much.

So why force students to get fat just to show that eating too much makes you fat? We knew that already.[/quote]

I know why, the students tricked them into paying for thier food

[quote]hit the gym wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t understand the point of forcing them to take in 6,000cals a day. I eat about that much when all out gaining AND lifting. The problem most people have isn’t even eating several times a day. they starve themselves by skipping breakfast, have a light lunch or a few cans of soda for the caffeine and then gorge themselves to sleep at night. The p roblem with them isn’t just the food but their reduced metabolisms and inactivity. This study seems to be pushing its agenda.

.

Finally, someone who sees things as they are. I can’t count how many people I come across who are overweight, and do the exact thing you talk about. They’re not overeating, they’re malnourished and taking in tons of sugar and processed flours.

man i see this all the time at work too… granola bar mid-morning, a soup OR pastry with coffee for lunch, and thats it… Or another fat guy at work “trying” to lose weight, who sees me taking MRPs before the gym and decides to take that for lunch, only he doesnt want too much carbs so he ends up buying just a protein powder with no carbs. For a meal. This same fat fuck decides to lift weights but quits after 2 weeks and decides he wants to do swimming instead.

In the meantime, I literally stuff my self at work, and they say stuff like “ahhhh i wish i had your metabolism, youre lucky”. What do you think they do when they get home? Bake fuckin cookies or stuff themselves on crakers. Then they bring the fucking cookies at work…[/quote]

being fat my self I resent that

We bake cakes!

Living off McDonalds is as stupid as living off MRP or living off only vegetables. No matter what, if you stick to one thing, you’re raped. With a wooden spoon. That has splinters. Big splinters.

McDonalds is crap, but so is all fast food. If you live off anything and only that thing, you’re retarded. Stop wasting money on studies and research dam cancer cures!

[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Yes, X, we do know that you eat big
Yes, X, we do know that you lift heavy.
Good for you.

Spurlock’s documentary wasn’t only an attack against McDonalds, but an attack on a type of lifestyle in general. If it weren’t, he wouldn’t have made any changes to his exercise regime.

You can’t tell me that you can get all the nutrients that your body needs to function efficiently from McDonalds. All the pesticides, hormones, antibotics, etc would send ANYONE around the bend.

What I’d like to know is how Swedish control over food production differs from the American control. Just as a guess, regulations over what a person can do to a cow, chicken or crop in Sweden are probably a lot tighter than that in the US.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? These kids are being asked to eat more than they ever have (about as much as a much heavier bodybuilder would OFF SEASON) and you think the results will be anything other than that they gained fat since they aren’t even walking to class?

Did you write this post just so you could lamely attempt to call me out? Could you at least write something interesting and worth my time reading next time? Thanks.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? These kids are being asked to eat more than they ever have (about as much as a much heavier bodybuilder would OFF SEASON) and you think the results will be anything other than that they gained fat since they aren’t even walking to class?

Did you write this post just so you could lamely attempt to call me out? Could you at least write something interesting and worth my time reading next time? Thanks. [/quote]

I guess you didn’t read my post at all. Which part made you think that I was putting that in question?

No one’s calling you out, X, in fact, I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s sick of you chiming in with the same shit over and over again. Unless you’ve got something new to grunt, why post at all?

[quote]AKA wrote:
Living off McDonalds is as stupid as living off MRP or living off only vegetables. No matter what, if you stick to one thing, you’re raped. With a wooden spoon. That has splinters. Big splinters.

McDonalds is crap, but so is all fast food. If you live off anything and only that thing, you’re retarded. Stop wasting money on studies and research dam cancer cures![/quote]

With absolutely no authority of any kind I declare you winner of the thread.

[quote]CHEKonIT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? These kids are being asked to eat more than they ever have (about as much as a much heavier bodybuilder would OFF SEASON) and you think the results will be anything other than that they gained fat since they aren’t even walking to class?

Did you write this post just so you could lamely attempt to call me out? Could you at least write something interesting and worth my time reading next time? Thanks.

I guess you didn’t read my post at all. Which part made you think that I was putting that in question?

No one’s calling you out, X, in fact, I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s sick of you chiming in with the same shit over and over again. Unless you’ve got something new to grunt, why post at all?[/quote]

This coming from one of the least interesting posters/trolls on this site. I am sure you are the epitome of “new knowledge”. If only I could be as wise and prolific.

I dont want to run down why the movie and this “test” are stupid as all hell. This has been discussed before.

If you take in more calories that you expend you will get fat. Doesnt matter if its chicken breasts or Big Mac’s.

This is kamakazi eating at its finest. If you ate your daily caloric needs your health will take a hit but not by the astronomical figures Spurlock and the “test” have done.

The documentary was a good one. It helped some stupid people who should’ve already realized it how bad some of the poorer choices on McDonalds menu could be when eaten on a regular basis as part of a sedentary lifestyle. And inspired the company to add and improve some healthier options.

Scientifically, it was a no go. The results were a foregone conclusion before the ‘experiement’ was conducted. It’s certainly not something that needs to be replicated.