Both the reviews I have read were about the experiment Morgan Sparlock had done a whole month and how much weight he gained and damaged his liver severely. His experiment consisted of a fat-free diet by eating three times a day, meals only from McDonalds. In case his experiment succeeds of demonstrating that because of McDonalds he had gained much weight, he would be able to sue McDonalds...BIG s
In the review by McFrightening, he tells about Sparlock from a dark point of view. He insults him already on the first sentence of the text. McFrightening believes that the movie indicates that it's all McDonalds fault that obesity exists. In his review, McFrightening says: "ultimately it's the contention that fast food is the engine driving highlights the fact that because of Big Mac, people get massive heart attacks which concludes to the point in which, he believes, McDonalds should be closed down and the obesity percent would decreased.
At the review of David Edistin, there was also an unpleasant point of view towards Sparlock. It seamed Edistin had thought Sparlock had just played around with his body too see what would happen. In the review, Edistin also talks about how Sparlock had to consume 5,000 calories a day while accompanied by a small number of doctors and nutritionist. Edistin also pointed out that Sparlock had gained twenty-five pounds when he ate three meals a day, only at McDonalds; each time Sparlock was asked to super size, he had to accept. Edistin mention that in years before, he was also an obese person. But, he had exercised many months and eventually lost sixty pounds. His main point was that Sparlock did a mistake in the film, giving weight to lawyers suing McDonalds on behalf of obesity and that it is an easy target for libertarians. He revealed an opinion, that people should not sue McDonalds because of obesity; they should just stop eating from them.
I believe that both of the reviews are suitable but, I am still hanging in the middle. I am not sure to which side I rather believe in. I am certain though, that something should be done with in regard of McDonalds and their super sizing meals must be forbidden.
In the review by McFrightening, he tells about Sparlock from a dark point of view. He insults him already on the first sentence of the text. McFrightening believes that the movie indicates that it's all McDonalds fault that obesity exists. In his review, McFrightening says: "ultimately it's the contention that fast food is the engine driving highlights the fact that because of Big Mac, people get massive heart attacks which concludes to the point in which, he believes, McDonalds should be closed down and the obesity percent would decreased.
At the review of David Edistin, there was also an unpleasant point of view towards Sparlock. It seamed Edistin had thought Sparlock had just played around with his body too see what would happen. In the review, Edistin also talks about how Sparlock had to consume 5,000 calories a day while accompanied by a small number of doctors and nutritionist. Edistin also pointed out that Sparlock had gained twenty-five pounds when he ate three meals a day, only at McDonalds; each time Sparlock was asked to super size, he had to accept. Edistin mention that in years before, he was also an obese person. But, he had exercised many months and eventually lost sixty pounds. His main point was that Sparlock did a mistake in the film, giving weight to lawyers suing McDonalds on behalf of obesity and that it is an easy target for libertarians. He revealed an opinion, that people should not sue McDonalds because of obesity; they should just stop eating from them.
I believe that both of the reviews are suitable but, I am still hanging in the middle. I am not sure to which side I rather believe in. I am certain though, that something should be done with in regard of McDonalds and their super sizing meals must be forbidden.
רשומות
