That’s as may be, but if Spurlock is a fraud then you need to provide more substantial evidence than whatever Spurlock says. That’s kind of the point I was making, actually. Supporting your thesis with evidence from a known and provable liar pretty much undermines your thesis in its entirety. So, maybe don’t do that?

> His openness about his history of drunking wasn't ideal and did damage his credibility.

That’s a euphemism if ever there was one. He was a raging alcoholic, and his alcohol consumption (which he denied entirely) accounted for pretty much all of his negative health effects during the film.

> However other people have partially reproduced the health effects of what he did

But nobody has been able to reproduce it entirely, or even account for the weight gain and ill health effects he experienced based solely on his food consumption. And several people recreated his stunt and were perfectly fine, or even had their health improve. It’s not about what food you eat, it’s about how much and your overall lifestyle.

> and his level of drinking is pretty common in the USA so it's not like he's some crazy outlier.

He was reportedly drinking a fifth of vodka per day. That is excessive by any metric.