[lemart5]

I'll admit that I never heard of Heart Attack Grill, a restaurant in Chandler, Arizona that serves 8,000-calorie "quadruple bypass burgers" until the restaurant's 575-pound spokesman died last week at age 29. While Blair River didn't die of a heart attack, doctors say his extreme obesity made it tough to overcome the pneumonia he developed and died from.

The whole macabre tale begs the question: Is there a limit to how disgustingly fattening restaurant foods can be? Should the Food and Drug Administration, state health regulators, Michelle Obama step in to shut places down that really and truly raise our heart attack risk every time we eat?

After all, New York City has banned smoking in pretty much all public places since the Surgeon General reported that even being exposed to just one cigarette can cause irreversible lung damage. And Boston is also considering such a ban.

Heart Attack Grill -- thankfully not a nationwide franchise -- is a hospital themed restaurant where waitresses dress as nurses, take orders on prescription pads, and wrap tags around patients', ahem, patrons' wrists showing which foods they ordered. The restaurant certainly can't be accused of false advertising with its "flatliner fries" made with pure lard or its jolt soda packed with caffeine and sugar.

Anyone who weighs in and tips the scale over 350 pounds before they order can eat a triple or quadruple bypass burger for free. And all customers, regardless of their weight, get pushed to their car in a wheelchair after they consume one of burgers that leaves them two to three pounds heavier.

It's all fun and games until someone loses a life.

What do you think? Should Heart Attack Grill be shut down as a health hazard or celebrated as the freedom to indulge that makes us American?

[Extra Innings]

lemart5...you wrote a great article there.

[Extra Innings]

[lemart5]

Lose the weight people.

[Cap dat 4ss]

fat people live well into their 60's and 70's, he didn't just die from being fat

[The Madcap]

Heart-Attack Grill should only be shut down if we as Americans have decided freedom is to costly a virtue too afford some people misusing it to their own demise.

I for one don't give a shit if fat fuks are too dumb or lazy to keep from killing themselves by eating too many damned cheeseburgers. And for those of you who think fat people need to be protected from themselves by enacting more laws, I say go fuk yourselves. What they needed was a friend or a parent to slap them upside the head and tell them they were getting too fat. And if you are too much of a coward to stand up and do it yourself, well then, tough shit. The rest of us shouldn't have our lives interrupted on daily basis by bullshit government regulations written by the rest of you pussies who don't have the guts to be real parents or friends.

[marcoloco]

i would eat there. food looks good

[Cap dat 4ss]

Heart-Attack Grill should only be shut down if we as Americans have decided freedom is to costly a virtue too afford some people misusing it to their own demise.

I for one don't give a shit if fat fuks are too dumb or lazy to keep from killing themselves by eating too many damned cheeseburgers. And for those of you who think fat people need to be protected from themselves by enacting more laws, I say go fuk yourselves. What they needed was a friend or a parent to slap them upside the head and tell them they were getting too fat. And if you are too much of a coward to stand up and do it yourself, well then, tough shit. The rest of us shouldn't have our lives interrupted on daily basis by bullshit government regulations written by the rest of you pussies who don't have the guts to be real parents or friends.

+1, but it ain't the cheeseburgers, well not usually. An 8000 calorie piece of broccoli will likely end up killing you. Cheeseburgers aren't that bad, its the fries and cokes that come with them that get us.

[Ace_of_Spades]

Taylor, shut the fuk up.

[ryanspeer2001]

Not going to engage in a big arguement here but I think it would be a sin for a place like this to be shut down because of its bad health effects. It is a choice to go there (one that I would make as well) and let them enjoy. I'm sure the 29 year old had a good run before he packed it in for death.

[hugh_morris]

Heart-Attack Grill should only be shut down if we as Americans have decided freedom is to costly a virtue too afford some people misusing it to their own demise.

I for one don't give a shit if fat fuks are too dumb or lazy to keep from killing themselves by eating too many damned cheeseburgers. And for those of you who think fat people need to be protected from themselves by enacting more laws, I say go fuk yourselves. What they needed was a friend or a parent to slap them upside the head and tell them they were getting too fat. And if you are too much of a coward to stand up and do it yourself, well then, tough shit. The rest of us shouldn't have our lives interrupted on daily basis by bullshit government regulations written by the rest of you pussies who don't have the guts to be real parents or friends.

well done dude...thats an absolute riot....

[lemart5]

Gotta hand it to the guy he use all 550 pounds he had to eat free everyday.

[The Madcap]

An 8000 calorie piece of broccoli will likely end up killing you.

I'm trying to picture what an 8000 calorie piece of broccoli would even look like, and all I can think of is Gumby chasing after me with a shotgun.

[beermankirk]

Man vs. Food! Man vs. Food! Adam Ritchie (the host) is next....

[denn333]

We all have choices to make.

[King Mayan]

[wtf]

smoking ban and shutting down restaurants that serves high calorie food is not an apples to apples analogy

[Chandler]

RIP

[The Madcap]

smoking ban and shutting down restaurants that serves high calorie food is not an apples to apples analogy

Depends on the ban. Smoking ban in a courthouse, places where everyone has to go, I agree with you. Smoking ban in a place that your presence is not required, like a bar, I don't. That's an apples to apples situation. It's about personal choice. The bar owners have the choice to allow smoking. You have the choice to patronize another establishment or stay home. Health hazards are the cost for going to the bar. Don't like it, tough shit.

Over exposure to loud music and pulsating lights (like you might find in the techno club) poses potential long term dangers to one's health. I as a result, don't like to go to the techno club. But unfortunately, that's where the hot slutty drunk chicks like to hang out. Which means if I'm looking to bust a slump with a busty tight-assed blonde out whoring it up for the weekend, that's where I have to go. But that doesn't mean I just get to go and lobby the city council to ban techno music in dance clubs so that I don't have to frickin listen to it.

You don't want there to be smoking in a bar? Then open your own damned bar. Assholes like you have cost my friends thousands of dollars and untold amounts of stress because you think you have a right to decide for them how their businesses should be run because you are so goddam selfish that you think private restaurants should be forced to cater to the conditions you like. Shitheaded bull like this is the exact damned reason we have a Constitution in the first place. But I bet you ignore it every chance you get except when it benefits you.

Fuk you anti-smokers.

[Grind House]

Good advertisement. This country is fat as fuk man. These folks are stuffing your ass like a turkey. Got ya right where they want ya.

[frostno98]

Can we please see a photo a this hamburger so we'd at least knock what Da f.......ked your talking about.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Good to see someone like Taylor...who's had a stroke...is concerned about people's health

[Flexin]

This restaurant didn't kill this guy. He was fat long before they hired him and he would have stayed that way even if he wasn't hired.

James

[mikejamm]

Depends on the ban. Smoking ban in a courthouse, places where everyone has to go, I agree with you. Smoking ban in a place that your presence is not required, like a bar, I don't. That's an apples to apples situation. It's about personal choice. The bar owners have the choice to allow smoking. You have the choice to patronize another establishment or stay home. Health hazards are the cost for going to the bar. Don't like it, tough shit.

Over exposure to loud music and pulsating lights (like you might find in the techno club) poses potential long term dangers to one's health. I as a result, don't like to go to the techno club. But unfortunately, that's where the hot slutty drunk chicks like to hang out. Which means if I'm looking to bust a slump with a busty tight-assed blonde out whoring it up for the weekend, that's where I have to go. But that doesn't mean I just get to go and lobby the city council to ban techno music in dance clubs so that I don't have to frickin listen to it.

You don't want there to be smoking in a bar? Then open your own damned bar. Assholes like you have cost my friends thousands of dollars and untold amounts of stress because you think you have a right to decide for them how their businesses should be run because you are so goddam selfish that you think private restaurants should be forced to cater to the conditions you like. Shitheaded bull like this is the exact damned reason we have a Constitution in the first place. But I bet you ignore it every chance you get except when it benefits you.

Fuk you anti-smokers.

+1 brother! Everyday the government takes away a little more freedom of what it means to live in America. Pretty soon the pricks on capital hill are gonna be telling us how to take a shit and wipe your ass! Totally agree with you man, if fat fuks wanna eat themselves in an early grave, so be it. If people wanna smoke in a bar, why the hell not? It's a damn bar where people go to drink and smoke! So thank you right wing conservative religious fuks who think they know how the rest of us should live, because we have some self control and can live in moderation, we have to suffer and put up with bullshit laws for idiots who have none!

[lemart5]

Can we please see a photo a this hamburger so we'd at least knock what Da f.......ked your talking about.

[lemart5]

[The Madcap]

+1 brother! Everyday the government takes away a little more freedom of what it means to live in America. Pretty soon the pricks on capital hill are gonna be telling us how to take a shit and wipe your ass! Totally agree with you man, if fat fuks wanna eat themselves in an early grave, so be it. If people wanna smoke in a bar, why the hell not? It's a damn bar where people go to drink and smoke! So thank you right wing conservative religious fuks who think they know how the rest of us should live, because we have some self control and can live in moderation, we have to suffer and put up with bullshit laws for idiots who have none!

I don't know about where you're from, but there's nothing I can't do around here specifically because of religious whackos except not get a beer after 2 am, something the liberals around here also support because they think it cuts down on drunk driving.

Liberals around here also banned happy hour specials. And smoking in bars. And talking on cell phones while driving. They imposed higher taxes on cheeseburgers, soda, candy bars and cigarettes. The price of cigarettes has increased 500% in the last ten years. Raised ammunition prices. They took score-keeping out of little league baseball and kick ball out of school. They banned girls from wearing spaghetti straps, halter tops, and short skirts in school. Now there's talk of uniforms. And not one of them has stepped up to publicly support legalizing weed, gay marriages, or gambling.

So, tell me again, why it is you're upset with the right wing religious people? When the right wing religious people have been more and more marginalized in their party ever year?

Think about it.

When Bush/the GOP controlled congress, what religious-conservative laws did they pass? Seriously. Name one. The only two you can find are 1) banning partial birth abortions and 2) cutting funding for stem cell research, two policies that have large amounts of secular support. They didn't overturn Roe V Wade. They didn't pass any amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Seriously, what have religious conservatives done with the government to control YOU? You specifically, what have they stopped you from doing that Democrats haven't helped them stop you from doing? Not let you practice sodomy? Around here that's not even legal for heterosexual couples.

Don't be a tool man. The religious right has no real power. They are pandered to during election season and then dismissed the day of inauguration.

The way I see it, less government equals more freedom. One party at least pretends to stand for less government. The other is openly for it. And you're going to tell me the party openly in favor of more regulation is less deserving of blame than the party that at least has a large segment opposed to more regulation?

Just because it's called a "sin" tax doesn't mean it was created by judgmental Baptists.

[falconticket]

I don't know about where you're from, but there's nothing I can't do around here specifically because of religious whackos except not get a beer after 2 am, something the liberals around here also support because they think it cuts down on drunk driving.

Liberals around here also banned happy hour specials. And smoking in bars. And talking on cell phones. They imposed higher taxes on cheeseburgers, soda, candy bars and cigarettes. The price of cigarettes has increased 500% in the last ten years. Raised ammunition prices. They took score-keeping out of little league baseball and kick ball out of school. They banned girls from wearing spaghetti straps, halter tops, and short skirts in school. Now there's talk of uniforms. And not one of them has stepped up to publicly support legalizing weed, gay marriages, or gambling.

So, tell me again, why it is you're upset with the right wing religious people? When the right wing religious people have been more and more marginalized in their party ever year?

Think about it.

When Bush/the GOP controlled congress, what religious-conservative laws did they pass? Seriously. Name one. The only two you can find are 1) banning partial birth abortions and 2) cutting funding for stem cell research, two policies that have large amounts of secular support. They didn't overturn Roe V Wade. They didn't pass any amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage.

Seriously, what have religious conservatives done with the government to control YOU? You specifically, what have they stopped you from doing that Democrats haven't helped them stop you from doing? Not let you practice sodomy? Around here that's not even legal for heterosexual couples.

Don't be a tool man. The religious right has no real power. They are pandered to during election season and then dismissed the day of inauguration.

The way I see it, less government equals more freedom. One party at least pretends to stand for less government. The other is openly for it. And you're going to tell me the party openly in favor of more regulation is less deserving of blame than the party that at least has a large segment opposed to more regulation?

Just because it's called a "sin" tax doesn't mean it was created by judgmental Baptists.

Madcap, your posts are just absolute Gospel. I agree with everything you've said. Congrats on seeing thru the BS that we live in.

[The Madcap]

Madcap, your posts are just absolute Gospel. I agree with everything you've said. Congrats on seeing thru the BS that we live in.

Gospel or not, it's the truth how I see it, as a wise man once told me,

"It's just a box of rain,
I don't know who put it there,
believe it if you need it,
or leave it if you dare..."

[muldoon]

You don't want there to be smoking in a bar? Then open your own damned bar. Assholes

Long term effects of 2nd hand smoke are accepted by all except the die hard "Well my study by the American Tar Lobby says it's fine" folks.

The lawsuits stem from providing a safe work environment for employees. Rarely is it a "we need to protect the customers" standpoint.

[The Madcap]

Long term effects of 2nd hand smoke are accepted by all except the die hard "Well my study by the American Tar Lobby says it's fine" folks.

The lawsuits stem from providing a safe work environment for employees. Rarely is it a "we need to protect the customers" standpoint.

Last time I checked the government didn't force anybody to become a bartender or waitress. You don't like the work environment, don't work there.

Besides, the people I know who got the most pissed about the smoking ban WERE THE EMPLOYEES. A) They all smoked and now they couldn't smoke at work, and B) some of their best customers were smokers.

We city-dwellers as a people have become urban-centric in our thinking. We are selfish that way. IE: In some states the people in large cities grossly out-number the people in all the small towns. Which means small towns are forced to abide by laws conceived by city folk, even though all the people in such a small town might completely disagree with the new law. Like the smoking ban.

My buddy used to work in a text-tile mill. They closed it down. So he went to work as a bar-tender. Shortly after the owner's third wife ran off with some transient, he died of a massive coronary. But not before amending his will and leaving the bar to my buddy. (These things happen in the south) Now everybody that worked or drank at this bar were friends since childhood, and just about all of them smoked, since childhood. (Like I said, it's the south) Are you telling me these guys should give a damn about any sort of state smoking ban when no one in the whole fukking town supports it?

Well they didn't give a damn. And they didn't abide by it. And everything was fine for 8 months until some jackass family passing through from upstate New York made a complaint. Now pencil pushing dipshits roll by un-announced twice a month just to let my buddy know he's got to bend over and take it from the government because of some nasally snot-nosed cry baby from out of town. Is that what the government should be doing?

And you're wrong about people disregarding second hand smoke. More people think it's bullshit than you think. They just don't publicize that opinion anymore because people won't shut-up when they hear it and talk their damn ear off.

I'm sorry, but if my dad can smoke two packs of Marlboro Reds for 50 fukking years and not have cancer, then no non-smoking **** gets cancer just because he worked in a bar for five years.

The fact is we really don't know why certain cancers occur. Take breast cancer. Or Lance Armstrong's testicular cancer. Did he get it from riding on a bike 7 hours a day? Maybe. But then why don't a lot of other cyclists get the ball cancer?

I'm not saying smoking isn't dangerous. I'm not saying that it can't, or won't cause cancer. All I'm saying is that anything can give you cancer. Sitting in front of a fire for three hours is more deadly to your lungs than smoking an entire pack of cigarettes. (At least that's what "science" tells us).

Human beings have a weakness in the sense that they need explanations for EVERYTHING. It's why both science and religion exist in the first place. Why Joe Lunardi has a job. Why people listen to Jim Rome or care about anything Buster Olney ever has to say. It's why we conduct studies to prove stupid things we already know, like too much time on the computer at night causes you to get shitty sleep, the more reliant we become on technology the dumber and more helpless we become when that technology fails us. (The current fad study is that GPS is making us all forget how to read a damned map. Before that, it was that digital caller ids made us unable to remember anybody's damned phone number.)

And so when things happen life, especially bad or unexpected things, we want a fukking answer. Immediately. And second hand smoke is the medical field's new "wrath of the god" moment. They don't know what causes all this shit for certain, all they know is that the smoking certainly doesn't fukking help. It's a correlative, not causal, relationship. And the correlation amongst people who get lung cancer, second-hand smoke or straight-up, is that they are usually poorer and less educated, receive less routine medical care, have a more physically demanding job, have a much shittier diet, drink more, sleep less, exercise less, and are more likely to work with toxic chemicals (non cigarette related) as a part of their job. All these things add up over time.

Again, I'm not saying smoking isn't a contributing factor to people who get cancer, I'm SURE it is. I'm just saying, if it's so damned deadly, then how come I could probably name a couple hundred people I know who smoke, and not a damned one of them has any sort of cancer? Whereas I can name four women I knew who have had breast cancer in the last couple years. I can name five people I knew who were killed by drunk drivers. And a few more who over-dosed on drugs. Life is a fukking risk. You can have the balls to face it or you can't. I personally would prefer to live in a country full of people with balls.

[GOIRISH]

it would suck to clean the bathrooms of that place

[manny24]

homeboy had not seen his cokk in years nothing for him to live for anyway...still r.i.p.

[bradthebloke]

whats michelle obama gonna do? her fat ass prob eats there when in town

[muldoon]

And you're wrong about people disregarding second hand smoke. More people think it's bullshit than you think. They just don't publicize that opinion anymore because people won't shut-up when they hear it and talk their damn ear off.

Here's my link http://www.gallup.com/poll/13006/sec...hyperbole.aspx

Where is your statistical proof?

I'm sorry, but if my dad can smoke two packs of Marlboro Reds for 50 fukking years and not have cancer, then no non-smoking **** gets cancer just because he worked in a bar for five years.

Well, my mother worked for 20+ years alongside 4 people who chain smoked while at work. Because she died while in hospital, an autopsy was automatically performed (even though it was obvious she died from the lung cancer she battled). The pathologist told her (and our) family doctor there was no doubt that her cancer was a direct result of her heavy smoking (yet she never was a smoker).

So while some things like bicycle seats or nitrates in hot dogs might need further study, the sane people of the world are quite satisfied that while 100% of smokers (or 2nd hand smokers) may not get cancer, it's still a toxic, cancer causing poison that many like myself believe, should not be a factor in whether or not a person stays in a place of employment.

Of course, no one twisted moms arm to work there. She could have just quit in her 50s and given up all her seniority and benefits and went out looking to restart a career in the shittiest job market in 30 years simply because the douchebag smokers wouldn't step outside the office.

So I'm left to choose between the prolific, wordy & angry Madcap, or a couple of fancy-shmancy "doctors" I dealt with directly, and thousands of doctors and "scientists" who say otherwise and happen to not be in the pocket of the cig industry.