fucking wait a second. the dude got a clean bill of health from the doctor right before he started his mcdonalds journey. i don't think he was an alcoholic. i think he was a broke filmmaker and he NEEDED this doc to make it or else his career would be fucked. if he ate mcdonalds for 30 days and barely anything happened to his body then he didn't have a movie. so he did what any hustler would do, he juiced his results by binging alcohol for 30 days straight while eating the mcdonalds. that way he would be guaranteed results. him later coming out and 'admitting' he was an alcoholic during the filming was just a cover. he BECAME AN ALCOHOLIC for the filming. it's the only thing that makes any sense since the doctor said he was perfectly healthy at the start.thoughts?
Just watch Fat Head.
>>223569079>he wasn't a drug addict! he was just a liar!
>>223569291>>he wasn't a drug addict! he was just a liar!it's an important distinction to make if he became an alcoholic for the film to juice his medical results. and he was lying like a fox by later saying he was an alcoholic at the time without specifying that he was an alcoholic specifically for the film.
>>223569247>Just watch Fat Head.i watched it years ago and i don't think he touched on spurlock's 'alcoholism'. fat head would have been made well before spurlock said he was an alcoholic.
How do we know the clean bill was legit?
>>223569506>How do we know the clean bill was legit?that's the only way this checks out. however, pulling a doctor in on the scam is much more risky. especially if the doctor agrees to be filmed for this part of the scam. like would a doctor throw his entire career away just so some random guy can make a little skit? plus tf does the doctor even know about what spurlock was really up to? it could have all been a ruse to get the doctor in trouble. the doctor probably thought long and hard about even being a legit participant in the doc. it would be much easier and have fewer loose ends if the doctor had no clue about spurlock's intention to booze it up while eating mcdonalds.
>>223569247this movie is imo much worse than super size me>statins actually make you sick and don't help against high cholesterol, in fact high cholesterol isn't even really a problem at all! Here's my hand picked group of doctors that will now spend 40 minutes advancing this fringe theory, and there will be no mainstream doctor to present a counterpoint explaining why their arguments are not widely accepted, or say "well that's true, but it ignores the full picture, here's what else you need to know to understand this...">Oh and btw, I just switched to a very high fat diet and after a month I feel great, I have so much energy!I'm sure he did feel great, but that diet has all sorts of other problems. Eating as much fat as he was in his diet at the end will increase your risk of getting gout. And if that happens he definitely will not feel great.
Will any of you actually commit to a pure McDonalds diet for a month and expect to be completely healthy at the end of it?
>>223569079I don't think anyone cares that he was or wasn't an alcoholic, everyone cares that the whole doc is essentially a lie, which (You) aren't even debunking.
>>223569079So instead of a drunk fraud he was a fraud drunk? I don't think it matters desu
>>223569079He said he hadn't been sober for more than a week in 30 years. Yes maybe he ramped up the drinking during the experiment in order to depict the food doing more damage, but he was also drinking some amount before that. Plus I don't think we should entirely trust his clean bill of health at the beginning. He could have in some way been deceptive about that part too, like selecting a doctor based on which tests he would/would not perform, or the doctor being more coordinated with the documentary production than was disclosed
>>223569743>He said he hadn't been sober for more than a week in 30 yearsSomeone like this would not get a clean bill of health. He literally has a liver ultrasound at the start and its fine.
>>223569079He was literally a rapist.
>>223569079>clean bill of healthI don't remember this happening outside of a hastily edited clip and him telling us as much with ADR.
>>223569773>a clean bill of healthWhat does this mean?
>>223569730>So instead of a drunk fraud he was a fraud drunk? I don't think it matters desuagreed. it doesn't matter. but it does make the fraud much deeper. i think he was somewhat forgiven because everyone assumed he was an alcoholic before, during and after the doc was filmed. being an alcoholic FOR the film is a bit more crafty and might have even opened himself up to lawsuits from mcdonalds. but by the time he 'admitted he was an alcoholic' mcdonalds probably didn't want to re-litigate the whole thing in public again because the damage was already done.
People eat as much or more MacDonald's than this guy did and their livers don't look like that.... Its insane that shit like this gets to exist and not one professional comes out and says "Yeah that's not really how it works".
>>223569676That’s a nice strawman you have there.
>>223569079He was definitely an alcoholic. When you're old enough you don't need research. You can see it in the texture of someone's skin and the look in their eyes.
>>223570131The glossy eyes and general uncoordinated movement yeah
>>223570030>Its insane that shit like this gets to exist and not one professional comes out and says "Yeah that's not really how it works".it would be very hard to be a doctor and try to come out publicly in favor of mcdonalds. it's such a nuanced position that it would be lost on the general public.>yea mcdonalds is bad but no way it could have done that to a guy in 30 daysis a pretty hard needle to thread when the public sentiment was already against mcdonalds.
you don't get liver damage from drinking a handle of vodka every day for thirty days. There was clearly something in mcdonalds food that would cause liver damage if eaten three times a day every day for thirty days, hence why mcdonalds changed everything so quickly, so the results couldn't be reproduced.
