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
100 points (91.0% liked)
People Twitter
7654 readers
1108 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.
It wasn't a study. It was a stunt. The stunt worked. People ate less fast food, and laws were passed restricting the companies ability to market to children.
Wasn't exactly hard to discredit.