30 Days

Did anyone else see this new FX series? The director of Supersize Me is doing a weekly series that has someone change their life for 30 days. A guy is going to take growth hormones for a month, another is going to have a Christian live in a Muslim home for a month. This first week he and his girlfriend lived off minimum wage for a month, renting a cheap apartment and not using their insurance.

The first show was prety good, I like the idea of taking serious subjects and making them easy to understand, just like his movie did.

With The Shield just finishing, Rescue Me starting soon, and a couple of new series that look interesting, FX is becoming one of my favorite channels.

growth hormones? For what exactly ?

In adults, human growth hormones increase the breakdown rate of fat and thus increase energy, but taking them over only a month unless in very large quantity shouldn’t have any serious effects. It does seem like a strange choice for the show.

See, now, the Christian/Muslim thing and the poverty thing, that seems reasonable. The growth hormone thing is utterly stupid, though. Next up: 30 days of anabolic steroid abuse. I despise reality television.

A pity, because the one standout thing of this reality television show over any other I can think of is that it actually shows you what someone in a certain circumstance goes through.

That people can see someone doing something that others might consider and go ahead with foolishly, done as responsibly as possible is great value educationally. As long as the show remains honest, I will watch it.

I wonder how watchable it will be without Morgan Spurlock. He did a pretty good job presenting the first episode with his fiance/girlfriend.

In adults, human growth hormones increase the breakdown rate of fat and thus increase energy, but taking them over only a month unless in very large quantity shouldn’t have any serious effects. It does seem like a strange choice for the show.[/quote]

More than that, actually. Growth hormone, when injected, metabolizes fat from fat cells and also promotes muscle growth. It’s essentially the only substance that does both things at the same time, or at least, is the most efficient at doing so by far. Taking a month’s dosage is more-or-less as chancy as taking steroids for a month (or cycle). It might be, it might not be - usually only time will tell, if at all. You sure shouldn’t take it consistently. It’s like the Unholy Holy Grail of bodybuilding, since GH allows for anabolic (muscle creating) and catabolic (fat burning) biochemical pathways to occur in unison, as opposed to conventional methods, where you have to cycle between long periods of anabolic work to build muscle (with, usually, accompanying localized fat and loss of definition) and catabolic work to burn off the excess fat and regain definition (with no gain and a perceived loss in muscle density due to fat loss).

Amateur bodybuilders often fall into an “anabolic trap” where they are too concerned with lifting as much weight as they can in the gym (because they aren’t dedicated enough to stick to a regular schedule and feel they need to start over or make up for lost workout time, or they don’t want to look bad by lifting lighter weights in a public gym, where absolutely nobody fucking cares). That leads to less reps per set, which is the diagram for anabolic work. Catabolic work requires a lower weight (often, a lot lower) and more reps per set. You want 6-8 reps for anabolic growth and 12-15 reps for catabolic burn (these are general rules of thumb, incidentally).

But, you can’t do both in the same workout if you want actual gains - workouts that combine the two are good for maintaining a physique, but not for improving it (if you’re already in shape). You have to build up, and then tear down. Well, unless you inject yourself with GH. Then you can do both. That’s a good subject for this show, really. GH doesn’t get the press that steroids do because it’s hard to get GH, and it has to be hGH, human growth hormone. Steroids come from where the Hell ever, and are thus easier to obtain. Plus, again, steroids will give you bulk way quicker than GH will, so lunkhead bodybuilders will prefer it anyway.

Stuff like this is why nobody should try to learn how to workout by going to a gym and trying to watch what other people do. Holy shit, 1/3 to 1/2 of all the people in the gym at the very least have little idea what they’re doing. They learned by watching someone else who didn’t know much, either. Dudes will try to emulate the big guys. The rule of thumb for dudes is thus: don’t emulate the really skinny guys (obviously) or the big thick guys. Big thick guys with no definition are too obsessed with bulk gain (as likely as not, which makes copying them fare too risky), and anybody who disregards half the proper method for physique building is either a dummy or a powerlifter, and you shouldn’t copy off either. Hell, even the ones with decent definition are suspect, thanks to steroids. And anyone who would make fun of you in the gym for lifting light weights is a complete jerkoff. It probably won’t be the big muscular guy, either, it’ll be some chunky doofus who keeps his Oakley’s on inside the gym. You’ll look much worse trying to lift too much weight, bonking after your first 3 reps and having the dumbbell hit you in the fucking face after you achieve rapid total muscle failure. Then everyone laughs at you, even the big guys. They point, too.

You can copy off the nicely-built, medium-sized dude if you want. But he’s gay and if he catches you watching him, well…I dunno, apparently something really bad happens when a gay guy likes you or whatever.

Article in WSJ on the Muslim episode.

Last year, I received a request to appear on Mr. Spurlock’s new reality show, “30 Days.” The episode for which I was being recruited, “Inside an American Muslim Family,” airs next Wednesday. It features Mr. Spurlock’s childhood friend from West Virginia, David Stacy, spending 30 days “living as a Muslim” in the Detroit area.

I asked the show’s executive producers–all of whom worked on “The Awful Truth With Michael Moore,” a cable TV show–how this could be a documentary when they had decided the outcome in advance. Wasn’t it possible that Mr. Stacy would come out seeing that there isn’t Islamophobia to the extent that the Muslim community claims? Might he see that there is disturbingly strong support in the Detroit-area Islamic community for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah–a fact regularly documented even in the normally pliant Detroit media?

No, the producers told me. “Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11’s biggest victims are Muslims.” With this in mind, I agreed to be filmed only with final approval of my appearance, which I never gave. Thus I will not appear in Wednesday’s show.

When I told Mr. Spurlock’s executive producer that I felt David Stacy was, well, a moron, she replied that Imam Husham Al-Husainy, a prominent Dearborn Shia cleric, “said the same thing” and refused to continue teaching him about Islam for the show.

A pity, because the one standout thing of this reality television show over any other I can think of is that it actually shows you what someone in a certain circumstance goes through.

That people can see someone doing something that others might consider and go ahead with foolishly, done as responsibly as possible is great value educationally. As long as the show remains honest, I will watch it.

I wonder how watchable it will be without Morgan Spurlock. He did a pretty good job presenting the first episode with his fiance/girlfriend.[/quote]

Probably very watchable without Spurlock aka Captain Obvious. “Oooh, look at me, I’m cutting edge, I ate only mcdonalds for 30 days and got fat”. No shit sherlock, really? :roll:

Well there was a guy who, to prove it wasn’t a forgone conclusion, ate McDonalds for 30 days and lost weight. His cholesterol still got ugly, though, despite his leaning towards the salads/pseudo-healthy side of the menu.

I’ve seen the first two episodes of 30 days and I’m kind of on the edge about it. It’s entertaining, thought-provoking, and has led to some good conversations. But it seems to suffer heavily from the main problem I have with most reality TV shows: they’re at least partially contrived and scripted. So much so to the point that I feel I might as well be watching a sitcom or editorial piece.

Take the first ep where Spurlock and his fiance live on minimum wage for a month. It’s a great premise and I agree with most of the points they make. But the events that illustrate their points seemed pretty forced in places. They wanted to talk about how hard it was to raise a family on minimum wage, so Spurlock invites his niece and nephew (I think, or they may have been cousins, whatever) to stay for a day. Well, okay, it’s kind of and artificial situation, but that’s the whole premise of the series. Then Spurlock overspends on the kids and has a fight with his GF --oh, what a good segue to talking about how poverty causes broken homes and single mothers. It was contrived and even the fight was transparent and unconvincing.

But now that they’ve shown me that they’re willing to fictionalize for the sake of supporting their foregone conclusions, I have serious doubts about when Spurlock’s GF gets a urinary tract infection and has to go to the ER. Did she really or did she fake it so they could make a point about getting medical care without insurance? I don’t know, but my not knowing is the point. The show moved then from “let’s do peculiar social experiments and see what they teach us” towards “let’s work backwards by taking conclusions and beliefs and then contriving situtations that reinforce them.”

The second ep where the guy goes through the youth treatment also had critical faults. Some people in other threads about Super Size Me have criticized Spurlock for engaging in junk science. This episode completely validated all those claims. They took this fairly sedentary guy and had him start taking anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and forty-two --FORTY-TWO-- nutritional supliments. They also had him start exercising like a madman with a personal trainer and utterly changed his diet to a healthy fare. When his liver starts screaming “WHAT THE FUCK?” and his sperm all die, they finger the steroids and HGH as the culprits. They do the same thing when he loses a bunch of weight. Their conclusions may be right, but the methods they use to come to them are junky and full of falacy. You can’t pinpoint any one factor when you introduce a whole constellation of changes and treamtents at once.

By the way, I think it’s funny that the muscle-head body builder is the only one on the whole show who seemed to have a lick of sense. I loved the scene where they told him about the forty-two supliments and he gives them a “are you kidding me?” moment.

So looking at the WSJ article Erik posted, I’m not surprised. The show is entertaining and thought provoking, but they seem to be working backwards starting from conclusion. So I’ll probably watch a few more episodes, but I’m taking it all with a grain of salt and won’t ever be caught citing it as any kind of evidence.

Probably very watchable without Spurlock aka Captain Obvious. “Oooh, look at me, I’m cutting edge, I ate only mcdonalds for 30 days and got fat”. No shit sherlock, really? :roll:[/quote]

Grow up. And stop repeating something you heard some other ignoramus say just because you thought he sounded rather smart when he said it. :roll:

What I took from Supersize Me was the general extrapolation - that there are people who just eat McDonalds and this is what will happen to them over time. I know people like this, all they eat is junk food. Lollies, pringles, hot dogs, McDonalds, KFC, etc. And they are fat and unhealthy. Really unhealthy. I know people who eat junk food moderately often and they are fat and unhealthy.

To see someone eat McDonalds, see him visit a doctor, see what will happen to him over time, that to me is interesting and reflects a truth. It’s more easily understandable by some stereotypical fat inhabitant of the United States who would dismiss something his piggy eyes did not see for themselves. It is a more visual reminder that I myself believe, whereas I dismiss the myriad of newspaper articles on it by just moving onto the next.

So what if someone can eat just the salads and lose weight? So what if someone can eat McDonalds only occasionally and not get ill? That’s not what I get from the movie - what I get is a visually engaging demonstration that junk food is bad, one that sticks with me. I personally need this reminder, it puts it back in perspective in case I have started eating junk food a little too often.

This is also what I have taken from the first two 30 Days episodes. These are situations I can see desperate everyday people in, sure some might not have it as bad and some of the situations might be contrived in order to make a point, but they are points well made to me.

That sums up my thoughts on the subject better than I would have done.

Supersize Me isn’t junk science… its a true scientific experiment. Its also a SINGLE CASE (with respect to the overall effect of McDonalds on a single person)… meaning its about 1/1000 of what a true scientific process entails in that particular stage. You can call it a slight fraction of a true scientific process, but you can’t call it junk science.

I love the Internet.

It introduces me to the stupid that I would never otherwise meet because they could never figure out the bus route to my house.

Yes. Repeat something funny that someone else said in order to score points against someone or something. Don’t specify who or what you are scoring points off of. This is irony related to the first paragraph of my post, right?

An experiment with a sample of one is by definition not scientific. Or at most, it’s bad science.

huh? i think you mean to replace ‘experiment’ with ‘theory’ there

An experiment with a sample of one is by definition not scientific. Or at most, it’s bad science.[/quote]

Right, there’s no proof that McD’s food makes anyone fat. Lies, all lies!

McDonalds doesn’t make anyone fat. Ingesting more calories than you burn makes you fat.

Spurlock, before and after filming Supersize Me, exercised regularly. He stopped while filming. I don’t suppose that had anything to do with it, though.
He ate 5,000 calories per day! You could eat 5,000 calories of oatmeal a day, and without exercise you’re going to gain weight and feel like ass (though the cholesterol would be different, sure).

If it’s science at all (and I really don’t think it is, given the poor documentation and violation of the “premise” whenever he ate something non-McDonalds, which he did), it’s crappy science.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/supersizecon.html

Yes. Repeat something funny that someone else said in order to score points against someone or something. Don’t specify who or what you are scoring points off of. This is irony related to the first paragraph of my post, right?[/quote]

demagogue, glad you could see I was also talking about you…

I found this wonderful blog that is dedicated to debunking this idiot. You should read it for more than just smarmy “no-its-not” knee-jerkism, it’s extrmely informative and detailed about consumerism and health in America.