The two posts above this post of yours talks about someone else doing a similar bet but for less than $1k therefore making it possible.

https://twitter.com/mchamburgler1k/s...52491237982208

New, more realitstic McDonalds bet going down now.

normal big macs, probably 30-35, with extras to drive up the price probably like 15-20.

How are you coming up with 323 lbs of food? I doubt each cone weighs 1/3 lb. seems crazy.

I think the optimal play if anyone were to try and actually do it would be to eat the bacon out of the gate, then try for 4-5 burgers, puke, apples and ice cream, finish with the 4-5 burgers right before the end, then puke after hr 36.

Wow. Sounds like you've got it worked out there.
My 100k v your 10k?

200 nuggets in 5 hours seems like a fair bet. Maybe not doable for most people but if someone was willing to bet big that they could i wouldn't want to take the other side knowing nothing about them, and it's easily doable to any competitive eater im sure.

Yeah, I'm hoping he provides consistent updates. Could go right down to the wire and provide some solid lols.

After my experience in the OOT celebration of McNuggets, (80), I'm betting against him unless he pukes. Those things catch up with you quick.

Only 1:1 money on the bet too.

Always a pleasure to see such wit and charm in NVG.

https://twitter.com/mchamburgler1k/s...91149731004416

Aaaaaaand it's over.

I recall Brian Lemke offering someone a similar chicken nugget-related prop bet. I think it was more in the vicinity of 70 in two hours, and I think they were Wendy's nuggets (which are smaller than McNuggets). Still hard enough to watch, let alone do. Brian isn't on Facebook anymore so I can't dig up the videos and confirm the details (he posted updates on there).

3.7 oz so 231 lbs. if they're $1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that seems crazy, I think your weight estimating needs some work - without looking, I'd have guessed 3 or 4 to a pound. So what were you thinking? 6 to a pound? That would still be 161 lbs, 170,000 calories, and a really, really terrible idea.

As for where I got those numbers, I didn't see weights on the US site, so I went to the Canadian site:

http://www.mcdonalds.ca/ca/en/food/n...HhoC0SXw_wcB#/

But I see they're saying 230 calories, so that would be 230,000 calories. Awesome!

Looks like someone found a lower number now; not sure where that's from, but if it's accurate, that should be no problem!

thread needs more analysis as to why it's impossible to eat $1000 worth of mcdonalds in 36 hours. are we sure? more hypotheticals and kcals totals needed.

Awesome, because I can pick posts apart all day long.

You don't get 44,000+ posts without some unneeded analysis along the way.

If you are lactose intolerant, and you eat the ice cream while sitting on a toilet, it may be doable.

At around 7 mins into this video you see a shot of what a $100 Mcdonalds custom burger looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B58dbQ2X80

I read the OP when it was originally posted and not again, but as far as I recall customization was allowed in the bet. Could I eat 10 of those in 36 hours, no. Is it impossible, no.

Eating apple slices and salads was ******ed. Jimmie Frickies tweet about eating the lowest cal / $ food was also ******ed (volume).

Matt Stonie / trained capacity eaters could potentially knock that volume back.

99% of anyone who posts anything online about eating or nutrition is unbelievably misinformed. I equate it to seeing 5 card draw hands on TV shows when they play poker.

I could eat 5 of those suckers in 36 hours, but it would be really tough and I'd need to strategically use that 1 allowed throw up.

I'll admit to likely being pretty misinformed when it comes to capacity/competitive eating. But despite (or because of) my ignorance, I'm sticking with my opinion that calories would still matter in a longer term wager like this unless someone can tell me why that's wrong. If someone's pounding back as much as they can in 10/20/60 minutes, I would expect that volume is pretty much all that matters. But when you're trying to eat far more volume than you can handle at one sitting, over a longer period of time like this, I can't see how calories wouldn't be relevant.

To take an extreme example, if I fill my stomach with the same amount (in volume) of lettuce or burgers, I'd expect I'd be ready to do it again MUCH quicker in the case of lettuce.

Am I wrong?

Edit to add: Perhaps the distinction between the two would be more related to how quickly our body is able to break down different types of food, but I assume that has at least some relation to calories - IE very calorie-dense foods would be more difficult to digest.

Barring some very specific personal preferences, finding the most expensive calories would be the way to go about bets like this, definitely.

guy puked after only 48 mcnuggets in 2nd challenge? Why are these kind of people taking these challenges ?

^^^^
#EvilLosers

i once told all my friends in college i was going to eat only ice cream for a week. i ate a lot of ice cream at the time and thought it was doable. i went one meal of only ice cream for lunch and then dinner i was back to eating real food. some people are idiots when it comes to being realistic about what you can eat.

we need to get the quail a day for 30 days bet resurrected.

yes, no one has came up with optimal volume - is there any combination that could be compressed into less than 15 gallons?