Interesting movie. I've watched an hour of it, and while it makes a couple of good points, I'd say it suffers from the same problems it tags "supersize me" with: erecting strawmen, and ignoring the common sense. In fact, this film has probably more inconsistencies and falacies than "supersize me".

Also, there are alot of hokey moments that draw out the film that could have been left in the editing room.

A few items that lead me to the above:

1) He goes on for a while about how the foods the SuperSizeMe Guy ate could not possibly not have added up to 5000, and he could not have gained 25 pounds. Hmmmm, somewhat convincing. But THEN in the movie, he takes pains to show how the traditional Calories In/Calories Out formula isn't legitimate because of hormones. So, given that, I can see how someone could eat alot of carb rich fast foods, raise their insulin levels, lower their metabolism and gain 25 pounds in a month.

2) He makes a big point about how he could not get the food diary from the SSMG production company; but how long ago was that movie made? Why would they keep all the documentation from the film for so long? Especially in the SSM film, we see half the time what SSMG is eating, and can infer the rest from the simple rules he set.

3) Lastly, and most importantly, this guy, who has a body composistion of 30% fat, wants to downplay that Americans are fatter and more out of shape in history and compared to the rest of the world, and that this is indeed a problem. He says that fat people will live as long as in shape people, but what about quality of life in old age? ANYONE can live to be a hundred given technology, but I want to be in the number that can walk and think independently.

Also, as someone who travels globally frequently, I can say that Americans really are FAT, relatively. Our food portions are huge compared to what other people eat, we walk (vs. driving) alot less, and our body sizes are noticably larger. Thus I think that putting calories on big macs and on menus is a great idea (the film attacks this idea). Let people make choices with all the facts in front of them. That is what real choice is about.

"Dear Diary,

After years of waiting... it finally happened!!! He kissed me!!!!"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' to 'jennifer Ouellette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' - edited by burdturgler

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries' to 'jennifer Ouelette, craig ferguson, calculus diaries, late late show, mouth organ' - edited by burdturgler

I guess you missed all his other comments. How's the peanut gallery treating you?

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>


I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.
Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>



I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.

Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>

So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.

There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm

>> ^kceaton1:

I hated the "over-production" and presentation and this is from an ex-Mormon. The message is important for him to tell, but I hate these type of videos; especially when they are so targeted.
Christianity and any and all supernatural beliefs, religions, or faiths are on my "on notice" list.
I've seen my fair share of videos of ex-Mormons that became Protestant (or some other "Christian") and they have this same feel and message. Sorry, but it's true. Still an upvote though.


This.

I was about to type it nearly word for word.

(Other than the ex-mormon part)

I love Sean Carroll! I was just at one of Skeptic Magazine's CalTech lectures with Sean in January. It was great! His book "From Eternity to Here: The Quest of the Ultimate Theory of Time" is pretty damn good. It uses a lot of diagrams to help illustrate some of the complexities of the subject and I highly recommend it, BUT, I don't recommend the audiobook because you loose all of the diagrams and the narrator is very dry.

His wife, Jennifer Ouellette, authored "The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Loose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse" which I also highly recommend.

He and his wife are really cool!

@JiggaJohnson, now add another element -- Girl A (aka Fox), actually wants bad things to happen to Girl B (everyone who disagrees with conservative dogma), but doesn't want to be held accountable for it.

Now you're where a diary making the rounds at Daily Kos today is, which calls this process stochastic terrorism.

It's a bit grandiose in name, but frankly it puts a finger on exactly what I think is going on at this point. These outbursts of violence are a feature, not a bug.

Cool kids also call this Becking.

I know I'm stepping on the thrust of Jon's message (rhetoric is no more to blame than rock music, and we should all just calm down and stop being so partisan), but it hearkens back to a moment in Rachel Maddow's interview with him where he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "even if it's technically true that Bush is a war criminal, the left shouldn't say that he's a war criminal, because that's too partisan".

That's the problem we have right now -- when the left says the truth, it sounds partisan. While on the other hand you have the right constantly lying, and it comes out sounding like incitement to violence.

And the media is all too happy to look at the above and say "they're both doing it". Never mind that one side is vindicated by the facts, and the other is just trying to gin people up to try to get political power; you can't report that, because that would be "partisan"...

>> ^Januari:

Anyone else just knock down stunned not one (let alone all) didn't use "The Bible".


Sure they did, someone said the "Reagan Diaries" didn't they? You mean they're not the same thing?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=

Sorry...but this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cat-Diaries-A-Movie-Filmed-By-Cats.