Your analogy means nothing. If someone at McD's got wind of this bet it would be in their best interest not to facilitate it. There is no way the press on the bet and the likely result (serious health issues for the person attempting it) will wind up being positive at all, not to mention the betting aspect.

The entire bet is irresponsible for both parties and really shouldn't happen.

-BD

People do eating challenges all the time. We're all (almost all) adults and can buy the amount of food we want.

If a person sits in a mcdonalds for 20 hours straight just eating and obviously being in distress then that is a different situation and the manager on site will probably make a judgement call on what to do about it. That doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't/wouldn't serve someone an unlimited amount of foods until that situation arises though.

Ofc if such a stupid prop bet had to happen it would in America you stupid fat ****s Mike Dentale wannabes

Someone sounds jelly..

https://www.pokertube.com/article/sa...ating-prop-bet

Pokertube quoting this thread.

$1,000 worth of McD's in 36 hours @ 5/1 odds is a dumb bet for the eater. NO chance at succeeding.

A better bet would have been $500 of McD's in 36 hours @ EVENS..I could see either side winning that one..

It'll be interesting to see what the angle is! Has to be something no-one has thought of yet. No way he's legit going to attempt suicide by McDonalds.

Seems like doing $500 or $600 worth of those huge one hundred dollar burgers and then spending the rest on apples is the best plan I've seen so far. So you would have to eat a humongous burger every 6 hours or so and eat a lot of apples along the way. Still doesn't seem doable if you aren't a competitive eater.

Subbed.

No carbs before Marbs

What odds will someone give me that i can prove that this is physically impossible ?

Shouldn't you be tending to your wife's son right now rather than posting jealous diatribes?

That, or the Darwin Awards.

Hahaha what a **** article.
Reminds me of those tabloïds.

If he is required to eat 300 of "hot food" he should request 48 hours at least for his side of the bet.

$1,000 worth of food in 36 hours simple go to a franchise store and pay the owner $500 to raise the price of a burger to $1,001 for a few minutes.

havent read the entire thread but everyone seems to be talking about whether or not one could eat that much with only 1 throwup allowed. what about the other end? laxatives or anything that can make him **** out the food before it gets digested, just sit on a toilet and chow til youre done

Don't some McDonalds in big cities have a delivery service? If so, maybe he can tip his way to a victory.

If he did that it would be pretty hard to prove he wasn't just flushing food down the toilet, unless they're prepared to watch him **** nonstop for 36 hours. I say in the interest of fairness, he should have to **** in a bucket and then have it examined afterwards to ensure no fowl play.

Agreed, but I think we all came to that conclusion a few days ago.

It's only a better bet for the eater because there might be the remotest chance of winning, but "@ EVENS" is still pretty terrible. 10-1 seems more realistic to me, and that's probably still too low.

I'm wondering if some of you understand what that $100 burger is. They talked about it being 10 angus beef patties, 26 slices of cheese, 20 pieces of bacon, and on and on it goes. It's hardly any different than ordering $100 worth of burgers, and why would it be? It's not like they suddenly start charging you more for everything because you're buying in bulk. The only advantage I see here is that you're cutting down on buns, and it could be some toppings like tomatoes are coming in at a decent $/cal ratio. Regardless, hoping to eat one of these every 6 hours is hardly any less ridiculous than eating 25 Quarter Pounders w/cheese every 6 hours. It's not going to happen. Apple slices still crushes this (and apparently 100% apples slices isn't allowed), and that's not going to happen either.

I don't see how this would help, unless there's a different "discipline" of competitive eating I'm not aware of. Every one I've heard of involves putting back 10-20,000 calories in a short amount of time. No way any of them are eating another 20-30,000 calories within 36 hours.

It is interesting to note, though, that the apple slices were coming in at 15,000 calories if you could go 100% that way, and that's in the range of what these competitive eaters are doing. The problem is, I think the physical amount of food involved would be too much. 70 hot dogs goes down a lot easier than 1,000 bags of apple slices.

Yeah, either there's a great angle or this is a really, really terribly thought out bet. I'm still thinking it's the latter.

I don't think it comes close to this. The only reason for this to go past $100 is stubbornness. I'd think by the $50 mark, or $100 for sure, he should be able to see that it's not going to happen, and the only reason to continue would be to see how "close" he can get - which seems kind of silly when close will probably only be $200 or so.

Again, unless there's a great angle we've all missed.



I'm not a doctor or nutritionist, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how the human body or laxatives work. But it's all a little too disgusting for me to debate.

But while we're going down the disgusting road, one more thing I thought of that I haven't seen discussed - much of the talk of throwing up has revolved around doing so intentionally. Gotta think that trying to take down this much food is going to result in more than one bout of unintentional vomiting, which I assume would be a DQ.

Quoting Mike Noori's twitter:

"My plan is to start with 500$ worth of apple slices"
"So you can add 20 scoops of Guacamole and 20 chicken patties?" "And 20 bacon strips and 20 cheese slices that's my plan for hot food portion"

There's a subcommunity of competitive eating who do very large volumes over extended periods of time. Youtubers Eriktheelectric and Beardmeatsfood comes to mind. They both eat about 36k calories in 36 hours at their best, and that's when they can eat the most calorie dense foods there are. So not apple slices, exactly. I doubt even they could eat 15k calories in apple slices in that time period.

Top poster now
I'm lovin' it!

Someone figure out how much sugar that is. He might die from the diabeetus..

Foot long?