There's literally a section in the documentary where his doc is like 'You're getting liver damage from this diet. I don't believe it. I've only ever seen this from alcoholics.'
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
128 points (90.5% liked)
People Twitter
7698 readers
493 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tells you something about the impact it had that people would still try to discredit it all those years later! What's OP's point, eh? McD every day is gonna be healthy if you don't drink. Get outta here!
No, I think their point was more the fact that it's heralded by people as a great study but is massively flawed and with obvious outcomes. There wasn't really anything stringent done in the documentary. Any impact it had was purely from shit people already knew. He had no controlled experiments and was an active alcoholic during it.
My point, personally, is that people who reference Supersize Me in any capacity as a valid documentary or study is someone who is either uneducated or a fool. There's little difference in holding this documentary to your chest and referring to it or in doing the same thing to Joe Rogan or Bill Maher's Religulous. It's low-effort garbage that's not made for intellectual consumption but is still used for it anyway.
That's kinda problematic.
That's my point.
So in other words, the documentary was so successful in decrying the rampant hyperconsumption that was accepted in its time, that such rampant is no longer considered acceptable or normal. And on that basis, you consider it to be facile, obvious... "problematic"?
No shit its conclusions were already obvious to educated people. They were never the target demographic. Literally nobody references Supersize Me as a "study". It isn't, and it hasn't ever claimed to be. It's a shock story to grab the attention of the least well-informed segment of the population. That you're trying to call it out for not succeeding at being something it never claimed to be, and even more so for succeeding at the thing it did try to be, is not a problem with the documentary.
Whenver you come up with similarly hot takes, the comments always end up being filled with a you offering litany of obtuse bad reasoning.
No. It was based off of a lie and people don't mention that. But sure, invent whatever you want.
I was literally shown it in school as a teenager while the entire time it was referred to as a study. I've also had numerous conversations with people who call it a study. Moreover, my post claimed that people TREAT it as a study. So, yes. People do claim it to be but I never even claimed that they did. You are not an infinite font of knowledge, you don't know everything.
You've made one comment on one of my posts. A post where I said I didn't like chocolate plugs being introduced at the bottom of ice-cream cones that otherwise have no chocolate there-in. Both you and everyone else in that thread had a fucking meltdown at the concept of an ice-cream cone that had no chocolate anywhere else other than the plug. They exist. I live in Canada. While the meme was talking about Cornettos specifically, I was just generally talking about ice-cream cones. You, however, refused to accept this as possibility. Instead, you acted like your own failed understanding of what was being said as the reality of what was being said. Much like in the comment I'm replying to now, you projected fucking hard and got angry at me over it. It's boring and a waste of my time.
Your failed grasp at what is being said does not equate to reality. Reply to this or don't. I don't care. I'll never see it.