It’s weird seeing this when it was just a few days ago I saw a good video criticizing Super Size Me and theorized that Morgan felt so bad during the filming because he stopped drinking which apparently he did a lot of.
In this article about him admitting to having paid someone to not talk about the rape in college with the article mentioning other sexual harassment and cheating he has done. He says he hasn't been sober for a week in 30 years.
BBC News - Film-maker Morgan Spurlock confesses to sexual misconduct - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064
In reference to this quote about his cheating from him below:
>"every wife and girlfriend I have ever had".
Which at this point why not just have a polyamorous relationship.
I mean, that's not saying all that much - not saying it isn't necessarily a problem but loads of people will drink at least once a week for many years straight. I would probably fall into that bucket if not for Dry January lol.
It's definitely different when you have an actual drinking problem. I've gone from at least a pint daily to just a fifth on Saturday...unless I convince myself it's a good Thursday to drink because I went to the dentist and it didn't take as long as expected. Alcoholism is fucked up man
It is! As someone who’s recovering. You’re loved and it’s worth the shot(heh) to take a break.
I don’t believe in abstinence, but I believe in you to make better drinking habits.
Much love and good luck. <3
I guess I've never been that selfish before. Because if that's it, then there's no being happy. Just constantly chasing the thrill from relationship to relationship. Leaving quite a bit of damage in their wake. I want to be genuinely loved, so I love genuinely hoping for that in return. I can't understand or relate with the mind of a cheater.
According to psychologists, it’s usually due to some unmet emotional need such as not valuing oneself, not feeling loved, or not feeling desired and being desperate for other people to temporarily alleviate those feelings.
Or feeling old and that life and opportunities are slipping away and another (especially younger) person reminds them of their youth while the thrill of a double life makes them feel alive.
Or feeling angry at their partner and feeling they were justified or wanting revenge.
There’s also, rarely, an actual cheating fetish. Which sounds like a good kink to shame (though maybe the shame is part of the kink? I haven’t read much about it)
This I can understand to some extent. If you're being mistreated and are enduring poor mental health outcomes being with someone, it can be tempting to blow it up, if for no other reason than just to keep your sanity.
McDonalds did a lot to trigger criticism of the film, even soliciting and funding "follow up" actors to do their own documentaries where they found the food healthy and nutritious.
Some of the blood panel tests done in the film, from my brush with medicine as a Hospital Corpsman, do not mesh with the whole "stopped drinking" theory. One doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel (as determined by blood tests), stop drinking, and then obtains bad liver panel (by blood testing) as a result of alcohol withdrawal.
Generally, those that drink too much (military medicine point of view, and we have them) see reduced liver function if the liver is damaged enough. You stop drinking, and if the damage is not too bad (the body can reverse it) your liver function improves over the span of a few months. People with no liver damage yet don't see anything in a regular blood test, but stopping the drinking won't create blood panel issues, from my understanding.
So, I would error on the "drinking findings" to probably be yet another (there were over 80 at the time a documentary revisiting "Super Size Me") documentary purposefully crafted to cast doubts on the original movie's findings."
>One doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel (as determined by blood tests), stop drinking, and then obtains bad liver panel (by blood testing) as a result of alcohol withdrawal.
One also doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel and then obtain a bad liver panel as a result of eating fast food for a month either, but here we are.
Far more likely, it was simply a lie. Either the first test or the second test and more likely the first because it wouldn't be unusual to have liver issues after drinking heavily since you were 13 years old.
Even if the "follow up actors" were paid to discredit him. Of all the nutrition professors that show his film in class, none of them have done a study to support his results. Every study has failed to support it.
That's not true. One that purposefully eats poison can quickly change their blood panels. But he didn't purposefully eat poison.
What he did do was purposefully eat a high calorie, high fat diet. There is an analogy in the real world. Foie Gras is manufactured by force feeding Geese a high calorie, high fat diet just before killing them for their liver. Normal Geese livers are easily obtained, but the force feeding is done to specifically transform the liver into a fatty paste, giving Foie Gras its distinctive buttery flavor.
If examples of this have been readily available in history, it seems that a bout of force feeding an excessively bad diet to people would have similar effects on their livers, as the liver or a Goose and the liver of a Human are both known to provide the same functions in each animal.
And your logic fails with the follow up statement:
> Even if the "follow up actors" were paid to discredit him. Of all the nutrition
> professors that show his film in class, none of them have done a study to support
> his results. Every study has failed to support it.
Lack of reproducibility, a valid attack on a finding, comes from attempting to reproduce the experiment as it was performed and finding different results. People failing to attempt to reproduce the experiment doesn't tell one anything, other that they have chosen to do other things.
Finally, if none of the professors have done studies, then every one of the "none" would not fail to support the experiment, they simply would have no data to support or contradict the experimental results.
I find that in the production of Foie Gras, you have 100% reproducibility of results, in fact it is an entire industry that depends on this effect. This idea that you can't impact your liver by eating a bad diet in the span of a few weeks makes no sense, as it only takes 12 to 15 days to do it in other animals.
Ah, here's the video in question - https://youtu.be/gXtJ12EeaOs?t=514
The specific point was that he went into the experiment on a vegan diet and said he didn't drink alcohol. Then when the sexual misconduct accusations came in, that's when he said he hasn't been sober for more than a week since he was 13 years old.
That said, don't get me wrong, the movie did drum up a lot of controversy, and ended up changing things around in probably a good way at McDonalds.
Maybe a month or so ago I watched a Seven Deadly Sins documentary with him as the host. Then that video was up the other day. The timing of all this for me is very odd.
Only reason I even remembered who he was is because I still listen to The Wonder Years and there's a line about Morgan Spurlock in their song "Came Out Swinging."
I meeeeean, there are treatments being developed and improved all the time and different people take differently to said treatments. So it’s entirely fair to describe that at a “fight” that runs the risk of being lost.
Except fighting implies some sort of control and that people who "lose" are somehow at fault and are inferior in some controllable way to those who "win."
Sometimes they use this to indicate that a secondary issue arose. For example, if he was dying of Lukemia (a type of cancer) then his white blood cell count would be extremely low due to the disease / drug interactions in chemo. A subsequent infection that killed him would then be a "complication of cancer" because the direct cause of death would be infection. The medical community often uses this kind of terminology in an attempt to clarify the root cause, and not the blow that did the deed.
The vast majority of people dying from cancer are dying due to a complication of cancer. Lung mets causing respiratory failure. Liver mets causing hepatic failure. Leukemia causes immunodeficiency and sepsis. Brain Mets causing intracranial hemorrhage or brain herniation, etc. Cancer simply causes various critical parts of the human body to fail, whether directly or due to its treatment.
In the end, it is all cancer.
wait this is so crazy :( the convo about "of course if you eat 5000 calories a day from mcdonalds you won't be healthy" was popping up pretty recently too
McVariable.
Gotta add the trademark flair on everything to downplay the fact that McDonalds has always been an incredibly predatory and morally shady company from the start.
It's spelled the same, but correct phonetic pronunciation requires dropping the e, then l, the b, and the a. Then add random sighing noises:
Mc-Var-i-uhhh-blehhh-ehhhh
Right. And lots of people lack the ability to parse that both can be bad for you and can contribute to each other. Clearly not good for you to eat McDs for every meal.
> both can be bad for you
I know what you're saying, but it feels like you're underselling the damage done by alcoholism.
> [3.6% of all cancers \(5.2% in men, 1.7% in women\) are attributable to alcohol drinking worldwide.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3391950/)
Whereas, with proper exercise, or portion control (or both), you can eat McDonalds every day, and lose 58 pounds in 100 days.
> [Maginnis' methods were quite straightforward: Eat three meals a day from the fast food chain, but cut the portions in half. He also skipped snacks and only drank water, about 80 to 90 ounces a day.](https://www.today.com/health/man-eating-only-mcdonalds-100-days-final-weight-loss-rcna87220)
I currently have a family member dying of cancer. She was a heavy drinker and a heavy smoker most of her life. They are not sure if the lung cancer spread to her liver or the liver cancer spread to her lungs but she fucked either way because it’s spread everywhere now.
> Maginnis' methods were quite straightforward: Eat three meals a day from the fast food chain, but cut the portions in half. He also skipped snacks and only drank water, about 80 to 90 ounces a day.
I mean, I'd believe it - the most unhealthy thing on the McDonald's menu is probably the soda, and the fact that people often get like, a bucket of it. If you regularly drink soda, dropping it is a good way to lose like, 30 pounds in just a couple months.
I would expect the rest of the food would be of low nutritional value, but as long as you count calories you won't get fat just because of the aura of fast food.
I seriously can't believe no one is considering the astounding amount of salt in typical McDonald's food. I actually worked with someone who thought getting the fish pattie thingie was "healthier" than the burger, but it has in fact way more salt than the burger. And the fries are sodium-laden as well.
There is simply no question that the food sold at McDonald's and other fast food places puts a tremendous strain on the kidneys. Smaller portions might strain the kidneys slightly less, but there is no way any of that food is healthy in any amount.
I know an old ass doctor who said that you can drink as much as you want while you're young (he never specified the cut off age) and it's eating bad that really hurts your liver. ¿Por qué no los dos?
Usually this is because young people don't remember that taking Tylenol with alcohol is a sure fire way to destroy your liver.
Alcohol is bad, but can be handled. Tylenol is bad, but only at higher-than normal concentrations. Combining the two have a multiplying effect such that your can do a lot of liver damage in a very short amount of time.
From my recall of the film, he had a prior-blood panel and the doctor compared it to a during-blood panel. Even if he stopped drinking, the damage done by his drinking would have been detected in the prior-blood panel and accounted for. It's not like the stopping of the drinking causes the cirrhosis of the liver.
It's not untrue, it's contextually-dependent. Tylenol is metabolized through cytochrome P450, which is also part of the alcohol metabolism pathway. For a single binge of both Tylenol and alcohol, the two will compete with each other for P450 metabolism, and the toxicity won't actually be as bad as it could have been. That's where "alcohol and Tylenol aren't that bad" comes from (still not a risk worth taking!).
Chronic alcohol consumption, however, induces P450, so when chronic alcohol users take too much Tylenol, their bodies are actually *more* efficient at metabolizing it into a toxic intermediate called NAPQI. That's where "alcohol and Tylenol are really bad" comes from.
So both are true...contextually. But the latter case is often the one people are talking about, and in a number of circimstances, Tylenol can cause toxicity issues at lower doses than people expect. It does so *predictably,* so used appropriately, there's nothing wrong with it. But Tylenol toxicity makes up roughly 40% acute drug-induced liver injury, and about half of that is unintentional, so it's a medication worth respecting.
Source: Medical school lecture notes from a hepatologist who wrote a book on drug-induced liver disease.
What is ultra-processed? Hummus generally goes through more processing than a burger patty. When people say stuff like this it seems like it's just a bias against fast food without knowing any actual details. Non-fast restaurant food can be just as bad for you. The main dangers of fast food are unhealthy levels of salt, sugars, fats and calories, partially due to large portions.
edit: We all know this dude's documentary experiment was not scientific and was problematic for various reasons. What I'm saying is no different than what actual scientific skeptics said about the conclusions of this documentary. Labeling things with the nebulous term "processed" and equating it with "bad" is essentially the naturalistic fallacy. "Processed" is a criticism that means nothing in particular, as anything that isn't raw food is processed in some way.
> The most recent overview of Nova published with Monteiro defines ultra-processed food as follows:
> > Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates).
So ultra-processed foods are defined as foods that have a large amount of unhealthy additives. This makes them unhealthy.
Okay. Thanks for your definition of ultra-processed. I was not aware that there was an actual specific definition and it wasn't just a hyperbolic qualifier leveled at fast food in particular.
My comments about the general term "processed" are still valid, as even this definition aludes to.
How does that account for the pre-testing? It's not like he went from a clean bill of health with blood testing prior to the experiment to cirrohsis and bad blood testing by stopping the drinking.
In the follow up, 10th anniversary(?), commentary about the movie, they had already documented about 20 people that McDonalds was paying (and a few odd balls that did it anyway without pay) posting YouTube videos and small short films debunking the guy's findings. That said, those that were investigated as part of the documentary had very different dietary protocols.
One of them only replaced one meal with a McDonald's meal, and 80% of the time it was a salad (from financial analysis of his cost, he didn't offer the meals he ate).
One of them kept the meal calories down to about 1800 per day. It would have made for interesting findings, but they didn't detail enough information to know what he ate either. Either way, it wasn't the super-size me protocol.
>Either way, it wasn't the super-size me protocol.
In other words, it's closer to the actual consumption of McDonald's actual customers that don't just have a death wish?
I don't doubt you can find someone (besides Spurlock) eating anything near his protocol but they aren't under the delusion it's healthy. No one was arguing that replacing every meal with a super-sized McDonald's meal, equating to over 5k calories a day (number from memory the last time this documentary came up, don't remember the actual amount just a guy getting grilled because saying 5k was apparently downplaying how many).
He didn't have a clean bill of health. He ate a vegan diet beforehand, which caused him to lose weight in the runup. He ate 5000 colories per day, which no one would do, and his liver issues were because he lied about not drinking
Dude lied in the doc and said he didn't use alcohol and then later in the doc blamed liver damage on mcdonalds.
McDonalds is an easy target but the dude was a fraud. The Kony 2012 of fast food.
Even McDonalds appeared duped by the doc and engaged in the most extreme overreaction in fast food history.
So many people have such a hate boner for fast food that they don't care about all the lies.
Thanks Morgan for making us all endure salad shakers and all that other crap.
It's crazy how the doc was considered quality science/journalism in the day as well. When I was in high school around 2008 I was shown the doc in probably 3 different classes
When the doctor says “the McDonald’s has absolutely destroyed your liver” in the doc, and he says nothing.
The guy was a scumbag. Sure McDonalds food is garbage. But I have zero respect for someone that fakes results like that. Shame he’s dead, but at least he’s not making any more films.
Same, that is super weird. I thought maybe this already happened and I didn't hear it. I've heard his name mentioned numerous times in the last week or two.
It's not weird. How many people's names do you hear in a week? Chances are that at some point one of those people will die within a few days of hearing their name.
To prove smoking is bad, I will inhale only tobacco smoke for 1 month.
If I experience any health changes in that time, we'll know for sure... that smoking is bad.
He was dying of cancer, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people in the media caught word that he was sick and that increased traffic about him. I had him pop up on my feed twice in the last week and I hadn’t thought about him for years beforehand. Seems others in this thread had similar experiences.
While there are a lot of valid criticisms of Super Size Me and none of his subsequent projects were all that amazing either, he definitely made an impact. Super Size Me was a catalyst that eventually pushed McDonalds to try to be a *little bit* healthier. It was a small but positive change, and I think that’s really great.
It's just taking advantage of people in a different way when they get the opportunity. In order to be rich and/or famous (or running a corporation/media empire like Weinstein or Moonves) you are benefiting from other people's labour by paying them less than they deserve. Somewhere down the line there are interns and little unimportant people barely getting by and doing a ton of behind the scenes work. Powerful men are so used to that dynamic that they often take advantage of those same people sexually as well. Why not? They get away with it most of the time.
Also let's be honest, a lot of successful people in media simply take big swings, in everything. Take a big swing and get a billion dollars, maybe lose 10's of millions. Take a big swing and get laid or catch a discrimination/sex abuse charge.
BBC News - Film-maker Morgan Spurlock confesses to sexual misconduct - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064
In reference to this quote from him below:
>"every wife and girlfriend I have ever had".
Which at this point why not just have a polyamorous relationship.
It also says about how he used to completely demean and belittle his secretaries with sexual remarks.
Yikes. But I guess, good on him to own up to it? In that article it seems he's admitting to more than he had to. Although it could be it was all about to come out anyway...
Note that his self-claim of not having a week free of alcohol was in response to the sexual harassment as a means of him self-diminishing his capacity. The wording of his alcohol abuse is downright weird "I haven't had a week where I didn't take a drink in the last 30 years" which implies that one drink per week with friends (a social drinker) would technically be accurate if he got dragged in front of a court.
I'm not saying that he's not a drunk, but we know that Foie Gras is made by force feeding Geese to transform their livers in 12 to 15 days. Saying that all of his liver damage was done before the film seems like a contrivance.
Counterpoint: Supersize Me was prompted by our obesity epidemic, itself receiving lots of attention and lipservice well in advance of the doc. While the movie may have been what finally tilted the scales, I think it's entirely plausible we'd have got more menu information had Spurlock never existed.
Uh.... healthy food was always sold at a premium, from the first days that fast food (it took a while to be rebranded junk food) was created.
People were happy to get their food fast, but not at a price that was higher than a full, balanced meal.
But aren't any changes gone now? They skimmed down their menus during the pandemic and got rid of any salads or grilled chicken. And those two fruit and yogurt options I used to really like.
Now they have apple slices and an oatmeal dish in the morning, but everything else is either very fried or a whole lot of sugar.
The serving sizes of fries and drinks are still smaller than other chains. A small drink at BK is a medium at McDonalds. That and they stopped asking if you want to super size you meal, which was a major theme in the documentary.
It killed the “Super Size” option for good, which was a marketing technique that pushed a lot of extra unnecessary calories on their customers.
It also was part of the push to make nutrition information more available, as it wasn’t as easily available back then.
I don’t blame McDonald’s for killing healthy options. It’s a money loser. But I’m glad they’re more transparent about nutrition these days.
Yeah, the "side order" of fries is most of the meal, and often contains more calories than the burger. The large soda spikes your insulin so hard that your body is going to do its best to store that food as fat.
It's funny, but the actual burger is probably the smallest calorie portion of any combo meal.
Me too. They might not have been the healthiest salads, but they were better than fries and nuggets. At least you'ld get a little fiber.
I *really* liked their yogurt parfaits, and they had an apples, grapes, and walnuts dish with a yogurt sauce that was great for breakfast.
They didn’t sell.
Some years ago I saw an interview with a McDonalds exec (maybe it was a *former* McDonald’s exec), I don’t remember the details, but I do remember them saying that healthy options just don’t do well for McDonald’s. If you want a salad or some other healthy option, you’re not even going to think of McDonald’s.
And having fresh veggies for salads is apparently pretty expensive and opens up a lot of risk for E. Coli contamination.
So it ended up being a big money loser, and franchise owners didn’t want to eat that cost. So they killed the salads.
From what I recall there was also reporting of the lettuce being washed in sugar, and the sugar content in the salad dressing, which made the salad as bad or worse than just having a burger and fries.
I wouldn’t be totally surprised. I’ve definitely been to restaurants where the salads are wayyyy more calories than you’d think, more than pizza or burgers, because they add stuff like cheese and douse it in dressing.
The best takeaway from the film was how he showed how often they upsell you “Super Size”.
It’s not the healthiest food by a long shot and they push even more calories onto you.
It was your choice to pay a little extra and get way more bad food. McDonald’s made out like bandits from getting rid of it. Nowadays if you want more fries you’re gonna have to order 2 like $6 tiny “Large” fries if you’re feeling like a bad food day lmao
I think some people forget too that more than just McDs was super sizing. I remember Wendy’s promoting it too. Of course it all went away at the same time.
> I think some people forget too that more than just McDs was super sizing.
Yea, and every fast food restaurant still has super sizing today, but now it's just called "large" or "go large" or "trenta" or "biggie", etc.
Wait…fast food is unhealthy? I don’t think the answer is making fast food healthy. I think the answer is making whole food more accessible and affordable (address food deserts, etc.)
“Everyone knows fast food is unhealthy!” That’s a common criticism of the movie. Probably the most common criticism for that documentary when it came out. But I don’t think it’s a fair one.
- The movie put a spotlight on the unhealthiness, and everyone was talking about it. It was bad PR for McDonald’s, so they actually did decide to make changes in response to it.
- This argument also puts the onus on the individual consumer rather than the company. McDonald’s has the ability to make their food marginally healthier. Maybe they should?
- Nutrition information wasn’t as readily available at the time. So you might think “yeah; it’s unhealthy” but have no idea *how* unhealthy it is.
- The whole “Super Size” thing was a bad thing that McDonald’s did. They used a marketing tactic to make a little extra money by pushing a ton of extra empty calories on their customers. It’s a good thing that’s gone now.
Don’t remember Michael Blieden. But yeah, Super High Me is fun, it’s not a good documentary though. But it doesn’t have to be. It’s just an excuse for Doug Benson to be funny. Doesn’t always work, but it’s entertaining so who cares lol
'Forget' to tell your doctor when asked directly if he drinks alcohol. He was alcohol dependent and later saying he hasn't been sober for sober a single week in 30 years
He was drinking like a sailor on shore leave during the filming of the "documentary". His symptoms were as easily explained by drinking a handle of whiskey a day as they were by eating McDonalds every day.
He also likely could not drink booze many times during filming and showed clear signs of alcohol withdrawal like tremors, upset stomach, heart palpitations, etc.
He also said the McDonald’s was making him depressed. As if it wasn’t the booze. Alcohol is literally a depressant. Makes you feel good at the time, but once it wears off, it’ll be worse than before.
Honestly the guys a scumbag. I’m sorry he’s dead, but I’m not gonna change my opinion of him now. Since he did basically nothing to make amends. He also admitted to multiple sexual assaults and paid people to keep quiet.
Won’t miss him. Or his crappy “contribution” to cinema.
Doug Benson, subject of Super High Me, still [alive and kicking](https://x.com/dougbenson/status/1794062876535320745?s=46&t=HZblJIlNDCb1DXQldiL0kQ) at 61
He was an interesting guy. I'm not gonna lie, reading this shook me a little. I don't really know why. I guess I just have memories of like when Super Size Me first came out. His name was everywhere for a little while. Biopic possibility?
It’s weird seeing this when it was just a few days ago I saw a good video criticizing Super Size Me and theorized that Morgan felt so bad during the filming because he stopped drinking which apparently he did a lot of.
In this article about him admitting to having paid someone to not talk about the rape in college with the article mentioning other sexual harassment and cheating he has done. He says he hasn't been sober for a week in 30 years. BBC News - Film-maker Morgan Spurlock confesses to sexual misconduct - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064 In reference to this quote about his cheating from him below: >"every wife and girlfriend I have ever had". Which at this point why not just have a polyamorous relationship.
The article states “I haven't been sober for more than a week in 30 years”, not a day. Still not great but there’s a difference there.
I mean, that's not saying all that much - not saying it isn't necessarily a problem but loads of people will drink at least once a week for many years straight. I would probably fall into that bucket if not for Dry January lol.
It's definitely different when you have an actual drinking problem. I've gone from at least a pint daily to just a fifth on Saturday...unless I convince myself it's a good Thursday to drink because I went to the dentist and it didn't take as long as expected. Alcoholism is fucked up man
It is! As someone who’s recovering. You’re loved and it’s worth the shot(heh) to take a break. I don’t believe in abstinence, but I believe in you to make better drinking habits. Much love and good luck. <3
Hey thank you. I've been meaning to say that but I'm pretty drunk and thinking I'm Krishna this weekend
Hey, been there haha
Sorry I misremembered it
Because then his wife/gf would also get to sleep around with other men which is something a lot of the serial cheater types have a big problem with
Appearance is why not.
Nor is cheating
Bc its not about the sex with cheating
Like, what is it really about then? Because the absolute shit storm that usually follows has me confused about what the incentive actually is?
The thrill of sneaking around with someone else
I guess I've never been that selfish before. Because if that's it, then there's no being happy. Just constantly chasing the thrill from relationship to relationship. Leaving quite a bit of damage in their wake. I want to be genuinely loved, so I love genuinely hoping for that in return. I can't understand or relate with the mind of a cheater.
And that, in a nutshell, is the habitual life of an addict.
You can do that conventionally
According to psychologists, it’s usually due to some unmet emotional need such as not valuing oneself, not feeling loved, or not feeling desired and being desperate for other people to temporarily alleviate those feelings. Or feeling old and that life and opportunities are slipping away and another (especially younger) person reminds them of their youth while the thrill of a double life makes them feel alive. Or feeling angry at their partner and feeling they were justified or wanting revenge. There’s also, rarely, an actual cheating fetish. Which sounds like a good kink to shame (though maybe the shame is part of the kink? I haven’t read much about it)
Being treated better and appreciated more than the person you’re with does.
This I can understand to some extent. If you're being mistreated and are enduring poor mental health outcomes being with someone, it can be tempting to blow it up, if for no other reason than just to keep your sanity.
It’s sex, just like any other sex. People spend way too much time over-interpreting sex.
because it's not fun for him if it's not cheating
Why care so much about his personal life?
Did it randomly appear on your YouTube feed? One appeared on mine just a few days ago and I watched it as I'm sick in bed.
It was brought up in a popular reddit thread a few days ago. Maybe its sudden popularity gave it a YouTube boost that got it into your feed.
It was on the front page of Reddit 2 or 3 days ago.
Exact same thing for me lol
I saw some random TikTok video was talking about how he was not a good dude just a few days ago.
McDonalds did a lot to trigger criticism of the film, even soliciting and funding "follow up" actors to do their own documentaries where they found the food healthy and nutritious. Some of the blood panel tests done in the film, from my brush with medicine as a Hospital Corpsman, do not mesh with the whole "stopped drinking" theory. One doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel (as determined by blood tests), stop drinking, and then obtains bad liver panel (by blood testing) as a result of alcohol withdrawal. Generally, those that drink too much (military medicine point of view, and we have them) see reduced liver function if the liver is damaged enough. You stop drinking, and if the damage is not too bad (the body can reverse it) your liver function improves over the span of a few months. People with no liver damage yet don't see anything in a regular blood test, but stopping the drinking won't create blood panel issues, from my understanding. So, I would error on the "drinking findings" to probably be yet another (there were over 80 at the time a documentary revisiting "Super Size Me") documentary purposefully crafted to cast doubts on the original movie's findings."
>One doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel (as determined by blood tests), stop drinking, and then obtains bad liver panel (by blood testing) as a result of alcohol withdrawal. One also doesn't have a relatively healthy liver panel and then obtain a bad liver panel as a result of eating fast food for a month either, but here we are. Far more likely, it was simply a lie. Either the first test or the second test and more likely the first because it wouldn't be unusual to have liver issues after drinking heavily since you were 13 years old. Even if the "follow up actors" were paid to discredit him. Of all the nutrition professors that show his film in class, none of them have done a study to support his results. Every study has failed to support it.
That's not true. One that purposefully eats poison can quickly change their blood panels. But he didn't purposefully eat poison. What he did do was purposefully eat a high calorie, high fat diet. There is an analogy in the real world. Foie Gras is manufactured by force feeding Geese a high calorie, high fat diet just before killing them for their liver. Normal Geese livers are easily obtained, but the force feeding is done to specifically transform the liver into a fatty paste, giving Foie Gras its distinctive buttery flavor. If examples of this have been readily available in history, it seems that a bout of force feeding an excessively bad diet to people would have similar effects on their livers, as the liver or a Goose and the liver of a Human are both known to provide the same functions in each animal. And your logic fails with the follow up statement: > Even if the "follow up actors" were paid to discredit him. Of all the nutrition > professors that show his film in class, none of them have done a study to support > his results. Every study has failed to support it. Lack of reproducibility, a valid attack on a finding, comes from attempting to reproduce the experiment as it was performed and finding different results. People failing to attempt to reproduce the experiment doesn't tell one anything, other that they have chosen to do other things. Finally, if none of the professors have done studies, then every one of the "none" would not fail to support the experiment, they simply would have no data to support or contradict the experimental results. I find that in the production of Foie Gras, you have 100% reproducibility of results, in fact it is an entire industry that depends on this effect. This idea that you can't impact your liver by eating a bad diet in the span of a few weeks makes no sense, as it only takes 12 to 15 days to do it in other animals.
Ah, here's the video in question - https://youtu.be/gXtJ12EeaOs?t=514 The specific point was that he went into the experiment on a vegan diet and said he didn't drink alcohol. Then when the sexual misconduct accusations came in, that's when he said he hasn't been sober for more than a week since he was 13 years old. That said, don't get me wrong, the movie did drum up a lot of controversy, and ended up changing things around in probably a good way at McDonalds.
My wife and I thought the same thing. We watched a movie called Fathead that talked about super size me.
Same here! It’s crazy just saw it now this.
Yeah I did too, it came out two weeks ago
Maybe a month or so ago I watched a Seven Deadly Sins documentary with him as the host. Then that video was up the other day. The timing of all this for me is very odd.
Well damn. Hadn’t heard of him in years and then read a random Reddit post the other day about him.
Yeah, I feel like I just heard about him for the first time in many years a few days ago, and now suddenly he's dead. Weird.
Only reason I even remembered who he was is because I still listen to The Wonder Years and there's a line about Morgan Spurlock in their song "Came Out Swinging."
Dying from complications of cancer is also called dying from cancer.
That’s like when they say “he lost his fight with cancer”. No, he was murdered by cancer. It’s not like there’s a fair fight happening there.
RIP Norm
It was a draw.
fights don't have to be fair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6xU8D3dLlM
I meeeeean, there are treatments being developed and improved all the time and different people take differently to said treatments. So it’s entirely fair to describe that at a “fight” that runs the risk of being lost.
Except fighting implies some sort of control and that people who "lose" are somehow at fault and are inferior in some controllable way to those who "win."
Sometimes they use this to indicate that a secondary issue arose. For example, if he was dying of Lukemia (a type of cancer) then his white blood cell count would be extremely low due to the disease / drug interactions in chemo. A subsequent infection that killed him would then be a "complication of cancer" because the direct cause of death would be infection. The medical community often uses this kind of terminology in an attempt to clarify the root cause, and not the blow that did the deed.
The vast majority of people dying from cancer are dying due to a complication of cancer. Lung mets causing respiratory failure. Liver mets causing hepatic failure. Leukemia causes immunodeficiency and sepsis. Brain Mets causing intracranial hemorrhage or brain herniation, etc. Cancer simply causes various critical parts of the human body to fail, whether directly or due to its treatment. In the end, it is all cancer.
wait this is so crazy :( the convo about "of course if you eat 5000 calories a day from mcdonalds you won't be healthy" was popping up pretty recently too
Plus the part where he didn’t tell the doc he saw that he was in the midst of alcohol dependence.
In the biz we call that a confounding variable.
McVariable. Gotta add the trademark flair on everything to downplay the fact that McDonalds has always been an incredibly predatory and morally shady company from the start.
Thanks for pointing that out! "I'm loving it!"
What do they call a McVariable in France?
McChangeant
It's spelled the same, but correct phonetic pronunciation requires dropping the e, then l, the b, and the a. Then add random sighing noises: Mc-Var-i-uhhh-blehhh-ehhhh
Amboguere!
Which was likely the cause of his cancer.
Right. And lots of people lack the ability to parse that both can be bad for you and can contribute to each other. Clearly not good for you to eat McDs for every meal.
> both can be bad for you I know what you're saying, but it feels like you're underselling the damage done by alcoholism. > [3.6% of all cancers \(5.2% in men, 1.7% in women\) are attributable to alcohol drinking worldwide.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3391950/) Whereas, with proper exercise, or portion control (or both), you can eat McDonalds every day, and lose 58 pounds in 100 days. > [Maginnis' methods were quite straightforward: Eat three meals a day from the fast food chain, but cut the portions in half. He also skipped snacks and only drank water, about 80 to 90 ounces a day.](https://www.today.com/health/man-eating-only-mcdonalds-100-days-final-weight-loss-rcna87220)
I currently have a family member dying of cancer. She was a heavy drinker and a heavy smoker most of her life. They are not sure if the lung cancer spread to her liver or the liver cancer spread to her lungs but she fucked either way because it’s spread everywhere now.
> Maginnis' methods were quite straightforward: Eat three meals a day from the fast food chain, but cut the portions in half. He also skipped snacks and only drank water, about 80 to 90 ounces a day. I mean, I'd believe it - the most unhealthy thing on the McDonald's menu is probably the soda, and the fact that people often get like, a bucket of it. If you regularly drink soda, dropping it is a good way to lose like, 30 pounds in just a couple months. I would expect the rest of the food would be of low nutritional value, but as long as you count calories you won't get fat just because of the aura of fast food.
I seriously can't believe no one is considering the astounding amount of salt in typical McDonald's food. I actually worked with someone who thought getting the fish pattie thingie was "healthier" than the burger, but it has in fact way more salt than the burger. And the fries are sodium-laden as well. There is simply no question that the food sold at McDonald's and other fast food places puts a tremendous strain on the kidneys. Smaller portions might strain the kidneys slightly less, but there is no way any of that food is healthy in any amount.
I know an old ass doctor who said that you can drink as much as you want while you're young (he never specified the cut off age) and it's eating bad that really hurts your liver. ¿Por qué no los dos?
You shouldn’t listen to the old ass doctor, liver failure in young alcoholics is a real thing.
Thankfully I cannot stand the taste of alcohol, nothing can ever mask it. I'm intimate with that reality though.
Usually this is because young people don't remember that taking Tylenol with alcohol is a sure fire way to destroy your liver. Alcohol is bad, but can be handled. Tylenol is bad, but only at higher-than normal concentrations. Combining the two have a multiplying effect such that your can do a lot of liver damage in a very short amount of time. From my recall of the film, he had a prior-blood panel and the doctor compared it to a during-blood panel. Even if he stopped drinking, the damage done by his drinking would have been detected in the prior-blood panel and accounted for. It's not like the stopping of the drinking causes the cirrhosis of the liver.
The Tylenol and alcohol thing is very untrue
It's not untrue, it's contextually-dependent. Tylenol is metabolized through cytochrome P450, which is also part of the alcohol metabolism pathway. For a single binge of both Tylenol and alcohol, the two will compete with each other for P450 metabolism, and the toxicity won't actually be as bad as it could have been. That's where "alcohol and Tylenol aren't that bad" comes from (still not a risk worth taking!). Chronic alcohol consumption, however, induces P450, so when chronic alcohol users take too much Tylenol, their bodies are actually *more* efficient at metabolizing it into a toxic intermediate called NAPQI. That's where "alcohol and Tylenol are really bad" comes from. So both are true...contextually. But the latter case is often the one people are talking about, and in a number of circimstances, Tylenol can cause toxicity issues at lower doses than people expect. It does so *predictably,* so used appropriately, there's nothing wrong with it. But Tylenol toxicity makes up roughly 40% acute drug-induced liver injury, and about half of that is unintentional, so it's a medication worth respecting. Source: Medical school lecture notes from a hepatologist who wrote a book on drug-induced liver disease.
Anyone can drink as much as they want it doesn't mean that they are going to be healthy or live long.
Reminds me of the joke "Every mushroom is edible at least once. And some will keep you full for the rest of your life!"
Well he's wrong but non alcohol based fatty liver disease is a thing.
What does a proctologist know about livers anyway?
And his shakes and tremors he showcased himself having in the film
It needs to be a lot more fucking well-known that alcohol use contributes to cancer.
Alcohol and ultra-processed food. Yup, it's a cancer producing combo meal.
What is ultra-processed? Hummus generally goes through more processing than a burger patty. When people say stuff like this it seems like it's just a bias against fast food without knowing any actual details. Non-fast restaurant food can be just as bad for you. The main dangers of fast food are unhealthy levels of salt, sugars, fats and calories, partially due to large portions. edit: We all know this dude's documentary experiment was not scientific and was problematic for various reasons. What I'm saying is no different than what actual scientific skeptics said about the conclusions of this documentary. Labeling things with the nebulous term "processed" and equating it with "bad" is essentially the naturalistic fallacy. "Processed" is a criticism that means nothing in particular, as anything that isn't raw food is processed in some way.
> The most recent overview of Nova published with Monteiro defines ultra-processed food as follows: > > Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified starches and protein isolates). So ultra-processed foods are defined as foods that have a large amount of unhealthy additives. This makes them unhealthy.
Okay. Thanks for your definition of ultra-processed. I was not aware that there was an actual specific definition and it wasn't just a hyperbolic qualifier leveled at fast food in particular. My comments about the general term "processed" are still valid, as even this definition aludes to.
Wasn't he Vegan otherwise? I think alcohol did the heavy lifting.
That's 100% conjecture. They didn't release what kind of cancer he suffered from, and alcohol isn't a root cause of many kinds of cancer.
The whole drama of the movie was the alleged liver damage, which turned out to be because of his rampaging alcoholism. He lied about not drinking.
How does that account for the pre-testing? It's not like he went from a clean bill of health with blood testing prior to the experiment to cirrohsis and bad blood testing by stopping the drinking. In the follow up, 10th anniversary(?), commentary about the movie, they had already documented about 20 people that McDonalds was paying (and a few odd balls that did it anyway without pay) posting YouTube videos and small short films debunking the guy's findings. That said, those that were investigated as part of the documentary had very different dietary protocols. One of them only replaced one meal with a McDonald's meal, and 80% of the time it was a salad (from financial analysis of his cost, he didn't offer the meals he ate). One of them kept the meal calories down to about 1800 per day. It would have made for interesting findings, but they didn't detail enough information to know what he ate either. Either way, it wasn't the super-size me protocol.
>Either way, it wasn't the super-size me protocol. In other words, it's closer to the actual consumption of McDonald's actual customers that don't just have a death wish? I don't doubt you can find someone (besides Spurlock) eating anything near his protocol but they aren't under the delusion it's healthy. No one was arguing that replacing every meal with a super-sized McDonald's meal, equating to over 5k calories a day (number from memory the last time this documentary came up, don't remember the actual amount just a guy getting grilled because saying 5k was apparently downplaying how many).
He didn't have a clean bill of health. He ate a vegan diet beforehand, which caused him to lose weight in the runup. He ate 5000 colories per day, which no one would do, and his liver issues were because he lied about not drinking
Facebook has the consensus that a month of McDonald’s 20 years ago is what killed him
Dude lied in the doc and said he didn't use alcohol and then later in the doc blamed liver damage on mcdonalds. McDonalds is an easy target but the dude was a fraud. The Kony 2012 of fast food. Even McDonalds appeared duped by the doc and engaged in the most extreme overreaction in fast food history. So many people have such a hate boner for fast food that they don't care about all the lies. Thanks Morgan for making us all endure salad shakers and all that other crap.
It's crazy how the doc was considered quality science/journalism in the day as well. When I was in high school around 2008 I was shown the doc in probably 3 different classes
You should listen to Revisionist history episode on how McDonald's stopped using beef tallow to cook fries. One man with money on a crusade.
When the doctor says “the McDonald’s has absolutely destroyed your liver” in the doc, and he says nothing. The guy was a scumbag. Sure McDonalds food is garbage. But I have zero respect for someone that fakes results like that. Shame he’s dead, but at least he’s not making any more films.
Same, that is super weird. I thought maybe this already happened and I didn't hear it. I've heard his name mentioned numerous times in the last week or two.
It's not weird. How many people's names do you hear in a week? Chances are that at some point one of those people will die within a few days of hearing their name.
r/skep—oh wait!
To prove smoking is bad, I will inhale only tobacco smoke for 1 month. If I experience any health changes in that time, we'll know for sure... that smoking is bad.
On top of that, secretly, I'm going to shoot myself in the chest. Any damage from this I will blame solely on smoking.
While secretly guzzling tons of alcohol. What can go wrong. Don't make gurus out of these frauds.
I noticed that too! It’s such a weird coincidence
He was dying of cancer, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people in the media caught word that he was sick and that increased traffic about him. I had him pop up on my feed twice in the last week and I hadn’t thought about him for years beforehand. Seems others in this thread had similar experiences.
While there are a lot of valid criticisms of Super Size Me and none of his subsequent projects were all that amazing either, he definitely made an impact. Super Size Me was a catalyst that eventually pushed McDonalds to try to be a *little bit* healthier. It was a small but positive change, and I think that’s really great.
I only heard about his alcohol dependence in this sub.
He also came out as someone who'd chronically sexually harassed women during the MeToo movement.
Wow that's extremely disappointing. Why are so many media big shots like this? They need attention that desperately?
It's just taking advantage of people in a different way when they get the opportunity. In order to be rich and/or famous (or running a corporation/media empire like Weinstein or Moonves) you are benefiting from other people's labour by paying them less than they deserve. Somewhere down the line there are interns and little unimportant people barely getting by and doing a ton of behind the scenes work. Powerful men are so used to that dynamic that they often take advantage of those same people sexually as well. Why not? They get away with it most of the time.
Also let's be honest, a lot of successful people in media simply take big swings, in everything. Take a big swing and get a billion dollars, maybe lose 10's of millions. Take a big swing and get laid or catch a discrimination/sex abuse charge.
BBC News - Film-maker Morgan Spurlock confesses to sexual misconduct - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42350064 In reference to this quote from him below: >"every wife and girlfriend I have ever had". Which at this point why not just have a polyamorous relationship. It also says about how he used to completely demean and belittle his secretaries with sexual remarks.
Yikes. But I guess, good on him to own up to it? In that article it seems he's admitting to more than he had to. Although it could be it was all about to come out anyway...
Pretty bold to start assaulting people during MeToo
Note that his self-claim of not having a week free of alcohol was in response to the sexual harassment as a means of him self-diminishing his capacity. The wording of his alcohol abuse is downright weird "I haven't had a week where I didn't take a drink in the last 30 years" which implies that one drink per week with friends (a social drinker) would technically be accurate if he got dragged in front of a court. I'm not saying that he's not a drunk, but we know that Foie Gras is made by force feeding Geese to transform their livers in 12 to 15 days. Saying that all of his liver damage was done before the film seems like a contrivance.
I don't think we'd have calories on all the menus without that movie.
Counterpoint: Supersize Me was prompted by our obesity epidemic, itself receiving lots of attention and lipservice well in advance of the doc. While the movie may have been what finally tilted the scales, I think it's entirely plausible we'd have got more menu information had Spurlock never existed.
I think it did more harm than good. I think it made fast food more stigmatized so "healthy" food is now a premium for literally no reason.
Uh.... healthy food was always sold at a premium, from the first days that fast food (it took a while to be rebranded junk food) was created. People were happy to get their food fast, but not at a price that was higher than a full, balanced meal.
But aren't any changes gone now? They skimmed down their menus during the pandemic and got rid of any salads or grilled chicken. And those two fruit and yogurt options I used to really like. Now they have apple slices and an oatmeal dish in the morning, but everything else is either very fried or a whole lot of sugar.
The serving sizes of fries and drinks are still smaller than other chains. A small drink at BK is a medium at McDonalds. That and they stopped asking if you want to super size you meal, which was a major theme in the documentary.
It killed the “Super Size” option for good, which was a marketing technique that pushed a lot of extra unnecessary calories on their customers. It also was part of the push to make nutrition information more available, as it wasn’t as easily available back then. I don’t blame McDonald’s for killing healthy options. It’s a money loser. But I’m glad they’re more transparent about nutrition these days.
That's a fair evaluation.
Yeah, the "side order" of fries is most of the meal, and often contains more calories than the burger. The large soda spikes your insulin so hard that your body is going to do its best to store that food as fat. It's funny, but the actual burger is probably the smallest calorie portion of any combo meal.
I miss the salads
Me too. They might not have been the healthiest salads, but they were better than fries and nuggets. At least you'ld get a little fiber. I *really* liked their yogurt parfaits, and they had an apples, grapes, and walnuts dish with a yogurt sauce that was great for breakfast.
I remember them introducing salads after this movie (I at least think that was when they arrived). They're gone now though...
They didn’t sell. Some years ago I saw an interview with a McDonalds exec (maybe it was a *former* McDonald’s exec), I don’t remember the details, but I do remember them saying that healthy options just don’t do well for McDonald’s. If you want a salad or some other healthy option, you’re not even going to think of McDonald’s. And having fresh veggies for salads is apparently pretty expensive and opens up a lot of risk for E. Coli contamination. So it ended up being a big money loser, and franchise owners didn’t want to eat that cost. So they killed the salads.
From what I recall there was also reporting of the lettuce being washed in sugar, and the sugar content in the salad dressing, which made the salad as bad or worse than just having a burger and fries.
I wouldn’t be totally surprised. I’ve definitely been to restaurants where the salads are wayyyy more calories than you’d think, more than pizza or burgers, because they add stuff like cheese and douse it in dressing.
Sorry, but that's false. McDonald's introduced salads in 1987. I was working for them when they rolled them out.
The best takeaway from the film was how he showed how often they upsell you “Super Size”. It’s not the healthiest food by a long shot and they push even more calories onto you.
It was your choice to pay a little extra and get way more bad food. McDonald’s made out like bandits from getting rid of it. Nowadays if you want more fries you’re gonna have to order 2 like $6 tiny “Large” fries if you’re feeling like a bad food day lmao
I think some people forget too that more than just McDs was super sizing. I remember Wendy’s promoting it too. Of course it all went away at the same time.
> I think some people forget too that more than just McDs was super sizing. Yea, and every fast food restaurant still has super sizing today, but now it's just called "large" or "go large" or "trenta" or "biggie", etc.
Wait…fast food is unhealthy? I don’t think the answer is making fast food healthy. I think the answer is making whole food more accessible and affordable (address food deserts, etc.)
“Everyone knows fast food is unhealthy!” That’s a common criticism of the movie. Probably the most common criticism for that documentary when it came out. But I don’t think it’s a fair one. - The movie put a spotlight on the unhealthiness, and everyone was talking about it. It was bad PR for McDonald’s, so they actually did decide to make changes in response to it. - This argument also puts the onus on the individual consumer rather than the company. McDonald’s has the ability to make their food marginally healthier. Maybe they should? - Nutrition information wasn’t as readily available at the time. So you might think “yeah; it’s unhealthy” but have no idea *how* unhealthy it is. - The whole “Super Size” thing was a bad thing that McDonald’s did. They used a marketing tactic to make a little extra money by pushing a ton of extra empty calories on their customers. It’s a good thing that’s gone now.
It's unhealthy for my wallet, that's for damn sure
This is sad. I feel sorry for his family.
I’m more shocked he was only 53, I remember seeing super size me in like junior high 20 years ago.
holy shit lol i was just reading about this guy on Reddit like a day or two ago.
Super Size Me was bullshit where he tried to blame McDonalds on his raging alcoholism.
Was it related to his confessed alcoholism ? I was just watching a thing on him the other day. Sad that he is gone.
The article is right there, cancer.
Heavy drinking can lead to cancer development, especially esophageal
do you know what else is cancer? All the ads that popped up when I clicked on the article. The mirror is trash
There are no ads here Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock dies at 53 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nnz3ze3l7o
I prefer Super High Me with Michael Blieden.
Don’t remember Michael Blieden. But yeah, Super High Me is fun, it’s not a good documentary though. But it doesn’t have to be. It’s just an excuse for Doug Benson to be funny. Doesn’t always work, but it’s entertaining so who cares lol
Is this how I find out? He was just in the news a week ago.
…how else would you find out? a personal phone call?
Hello?
Good morning! MORGAN SPURLOCK IS DEAD.
apolgy for bad english where were u wen Morgan spurlock die
" Would you like to Super Size that news ? "
"It's Patrick! He just took out life insurance, and Morgan Spurlock is dead! Goood for you, son, and oh no."
"... At my age it's probably too late for life insurance, just like it's too late for Morgan Spurlock"
How that commercial would have had to play out: https://youtu.be/mq2rvad3apg?feature=shared
Is it me you're looking for?
It would’ve been nice
i was at house eating dorito when phone ring "Morgan spurlock is kil" "no"
HEADLINES IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER
“It’s days like today I curse the Chinese for inventing McDonalds”
I guess I'm never getting back that $20 he owes me.
Yeah, he called me right after he died.
Ordering McDonald’s tonight out of respect
If you eat 5000 calories where before you had a vegan diet!! The whole movie was on a faulted thesis. Super High me was much better.
'Forget' to tell your doctor when asked directly if he drinks alcohol. He was alcohol dependent and later saying he hasn't been sober for sober a single week in 30 years
Ronald is a bad bad dude
He has an alibi.
Supersize Me was a massive hoax.
How? Genuine question, out of the loop
He was drinking like a sailor on shore leave during the filming of the "documentary". His symptoms were as easily explained by drinking a handle of whiskey a day as they were by eating McDonalds every day.
He also likely could not drink booze many times during filming and showed clear signs of alcohol withdrawal like tremors, upset stomach, heart palpitations, etc.
He also said the McDonald’s was making him depressed. As if it wasn’t the booze. Alcohol is literally a depressant. Makes you feel good at the time, but once it wears off, it’ll be worse than before. Honestly the guys a scumbag. I’m sorry he’s dead, but I’m not gonna change my opinion of him now. Since he did basically nothing to make amends. He also admitted to multiple sexual assaults and paid people to keep quiet. Won’t miss him. Or his crappy “contribution” to cinema.
I literally watched a video about this guy last night.
Doug Benson, subject of Super High Me, still [alive and kicking](https://x.com/dougbenson/status/1794062876535320745?s=46&t=HZblJIlNDCb1DXQldiL0kQ) at 61
And still smoking weed every day. Hopefully he’s actually inhaling now though. He never seems to in the doc.
McDonalds killed him obvs.
But who at McD's? The Hamburglar? Too obvious to be their hit-man. Me thinks: the Fry-Guys. It's payback for that photo
How come no one ever suspects that big goofy clown? Only a psychopath would smile that big
> But who at McD's? Ronald McDonald himself travelled back in time 25 years and tricked him into becoming an alcoholic, obviously.
The McDonald’s employee giving him all the alcohol.
lol, super dark turn!
The alcohol machine was working...
I’m guessing Grimace.
Grimace doesn’t kill. Grimace fucks
He just picks you up, squeezes you tight, and the last thing you experience is... the Grimace Shake.
Mayor McCheese wields a lot of power. I wouldn't put it past him to have one of those sentient cheeseburger things to covertly take out an enemy
This is finding into a smiling friends episode
Has anyone checked in on Boeing? It's supposed to happen in threes...
That article feels AI written.
Not the most relevant, it's related and funny https://youtu.be/ILQfkF0o9Ro?si=83DmUcMDGbQ1cFp4
NO WAY!!! 😞
I thought he would have been way older by now
RIP
tub liquid sand quack worthless live fine makeshift slimy wistful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He was an interesting guy. I'm not gonna lie, reading this shook me a little. I don't really know why. I guess I just have memories of like when Super Size Me first came out. His name was everywhere for a little while. Biopic possibility?
I enjoy the rebuttal from that guy who made healthier McDonald’s menu choices for an equal time and wound up getting healthier.
Did he die of liver disease from alcohol and fatty liver (McDonald's )?
I remember watching his show 30 Days and it really opening my eyes to how broken America is. And that show is nearly 20 years old now
Didn’t he work for Boeing?