Test...



K. It was family friendly when I took my horned up sixteen year old as well. He appreciated it.
 
The Hooters here closed.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
They aren't even edgy compared to new places that basically do the same thing except go more extreme with the outfits.
Click to expand...
I went into Twin Peaks one day for lunch when I was at Tech. Every single female employee in there had on lingerie. And, very revealing lingerie at that (thongs and shit). TBH, I felt a bit uncomfortable.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
They aren't even edgy compared to new places that basically do the same thing except go more extreme with the outfits.
Click to expand...
Yeah but this was a chain. You knew what you were getting into and it was okay. I really would not consider the wings high quality, but who gave a shit.
 
Cotton said:
I went into Twin Peaks one day for lunch when I was at Tech. Every single female employee in there had on lingerie. And, very revealing lingerie at that (thongs and shit). TBH, I felt a bit uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Yeah there was a place in STL, can't even remember what it was called. But it was basically girls wearing jerseys and underwear. Some of which were thongs. Also a place called Hotshots that was basically a rowdy version of Hooters. I remember somehow getting to judge a wet t-shirt contest there once. Hooters was basically the acceptable version for a 12 year old to go.
 
Grok:

Here are the main points people (including critics, researchers, and later analyses) often raise:

It wasn't a rigorous scientific experiment. Spurlock ate only McDonald's for 30 days, but he consumed a massive amount of calories (averaging ~5,000 per day, sometimes super-sizing when offered), drastically reduced his physical activity, and didn't follow any balanced approach. This is more like an extreme binge than how most people eat fast food. Other people who tried similar (but more moderate) versions didn't get the same dramatic results—some even lost weight on calorie-controlled McDonald's diets.

Calorie and food math didn't always add up. Critics (like in the rebuttal film Fat Head) pointed out inconsistencies in what he claimed to eat versus the reported effects. He declined to release his full food log, which fueled skepticism.

The liver damage and other severe effects were likely influenced by undisclosed factors. Years later, Spurlock admitted he had a long-term struggle with alcoholism (including during filming), which he didn't mention in the documentary. Heavy drinking is a well-known cause of liver issues (like fatty liver), so this cast doubt on how much was truly from the fast food alone.

It oversimplified obesity and fast food's role. The film strongly implied McDonald's (and fast food) was a primary driver of America's obesity issues in a "Big Tobacco"-style way, while downplaying personal responsibility, overall diet/exercise habits, and individual variation. McDonald's pushed back, calling it a distortion.

The documentary was very influential—it sparked a lot of debate about fast food, and McDonald's even phased out "Super Size" options around that time—but it's often now viewed more as effective advocacy/entertainment than solid journalism or science.

Spurlock also faced later personal controversies (e.g., #MeToo-related admissions), which further tarnished how people view the film.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Grok:

Here are the main points people (including critics, researchers, and later analyses) often raise:

It wasn't a rigorous scientific experiment. Spurlock ate only McDonald's for 30 days, but he consumed a massive amount of calories (averaging ~5,000 per day, sometimes super-sizing when offered), drastically reduced his physical activity, and didn't follow any balanced approach. This is more like an extreme binge than how most people eat fast food. Other people who tried similar (but more moderate) versions didn't get the same dramatic results—some even lost weight on calorie-controlled McDonald's diets.

Calorie and food math didn't always add up. Critics (like in the rebuttal film Fat Head) pointed out inconsistencies in what he claimed to eat versus the reported effects. He declined to release his full food log, which fueled skepticism.

The liver damage and other severe effects were likely influenced by undisclosed factors. Years later, Spurlock admitted he had a long-term struggle with alcoholism (including during filming), which he didn't mention in the documentary. Heavy drinking is a well-known cause of liver issues (like fatty liver), so this cast doubt on how much was truly from the fast food alone.

It oversimplified obesity and fast food's role. The film strongly implied McDonald's (and fast food) was a primary driver of America's obesity issues in a "Big Tobacco"-style way, while downplaying personal responsibility, overall diet/exercise habits, and individual variation. McDonald's pushed back, calling it a distortion.

The documentary was very influential—it sparked a lot of debate about fast food, and McDonald's even phased out "Super Size" options around that time—but it's often now viewed more as effective advocacy/entertainment than solid journalism or science.

Spurlock also faced later personal controversies (e.g., #MeToo-related admissions), which further tarnished how people view the film.
Click to expand...
Didn't know about his alcoholism, but it never made sense to me that there was something unusually harmful about that food... He just ate way too much of it. I always thought that if you just ate two big fast food burgers a day at, whatever, 900 calories each, most people would only be at maintenance calories or below, and would be perfectly fine.

It sort of galled me at the end when his hippy girlfriend was all, oh, I'll put you on my vegetarian diet and you'll be cured in no time... But eat 4000 calories per day of honey and oatmeal and tofu and granola and you'll be just as fat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom