On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:44:18 GMT, "kilikini"
> wrote:

>Wow, great article, Jack. Now if someone could be brave enough to try let's
>say, Jack In The Box, for 30 days, then try McDonald's for 30 days (after
>cleaning out the system), then try KFC for 30 days, we could figure out
>which fast food restaurant was worse. Not that anyone would do it, nor am I
>endorsing the idea, I'm just thinking one step further than Mr. Spurlock.
>Could anyone survive that?

http://tinyurl.com/33epb

To be fair, I expect many would have the same problems if they ate
pizza 3X a day for a month or a complete breakfast, lunch, & dinner at
Mom's diner or IHOP. McDonald's (eventually) replied that diners
*could* make healthy choices from their menus, while Mr. Spurlock said
he felt obliged to "supersize" whenever the option was offered.
"Performance Art" indeed. An illustration to back up the "McDonald's
made me fat" lawsuits, implying no choice at all.

Spurlock says one of his goals was to show that (school) diets
composed entirely of burgers and pizza aren't healthy, which I agree
with entirely. The 'nutrition' breakdown on many of these meals appear
to fall into a 'healthy' range, but anecdotal evidence suggests
children discard the (separate compartment) fruit & veg and fight for
the pizza and fries, supplemented with soft drinks.

It may be true it has to be pointed out that 3 meals a day at a fast
food joint isn't good for anyone. But that kind of eating isn't (one
hopes) normal. Even the most nutritionally-oblivious recognize that an
all-you-can-eat buffet for lunch implies a little restraint at dinner.