Zermatt Neo has uploaded a video about the fried rice eating contest held at the Singapore Comic Con on December 6. The top 3: 1) Zermatt Neo 28 bowls 7.84 kg in 30 minutes 2) Eater X King 3) Sarah Ow. James Webb choked on a piece of metal and left the stage with about 10 minutes remaining.

December 29, 2025 at 12:28 am by ojrifkin · More posts about:Contest Results, James Webb, Singapore, Zermatt Neo | Permalink * Comments (13)

13 Comments »

  1. Anonymous said

    December 29, 2025 @ 3:15 am

    was that really metal or paper? Either way that sucks. Zermatt said it was paper.

  2. Anonymous said

    December 29, 2025 @ 7:29 am

    Exposing Grifters and Frauds in Eating: Brandon “garbage gut” Clark. If anyone ever reads Gut Clark, especially on facebook, you’ll often see him interact with people who call out his fraud and BS. He often starts spouting how much he makes in response. Recently, he replied about his “800k” followers on Facebook and stated he makes 15 to 18K a month on Facebook. First off, his follower count is bogus and he paid for followers. Hopefully, people have enough criticial thinking here to recognize that. So, that’s thing 1. Here are a couple screen shots from SocialBlade. You’ll see in his eating channel to obvious spikes of “new subs”. Folks, that’s not organic and is purchased subs. Especially since it’s on his “eating” channel. Look at his great Outdoor channel starting to naturally decline in the other image. No one wants to watch that crap. So, this “income” I knew was bullshit and decided to ask Grok to analyze the situation. See what Grok replied back with below. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

    https://ibb.co/1S2gMpY
    https://ibb.co/vvcqj54n

    From Grok:

    The claim from “Da Garbage Disposal” (who appears to be a real Facebook page focused on eating challenges, outdoors content, and humor) of making $15,000–$18,000 per month purely from Facebook monetization with around 804k followers is highly unlikely to be accurate based on typical 2025 earnings data. It’s almost certainly exaggerated or includes income streams beyond standard platform payouts (or possibly fabricated for bravado in the argument).
    Here’s a breakdown of why this seems unrealistic, based on real creator reports, Meta’s monetization rules, and average payouts in late 2025.
    Facebook Monetization Basics in 2025
    To earn from ads or bonuses on Facebook (via the Content Monetization program, which consolidated things like in-stream ads, Reels bonuses, etc. after mid-2025 changes), pages generally need:

    At least 10,000 followers
    Strong video watch time (e.g., 600,000+ minutes viewed in the last 60 days)
    Compliance with policies (no major violations)

    Payouts come mostly from:

    In-stream/overlay ads in videos
    Performance bonuses for engagement (views, watch time, interactions)
    Reels-specific earnings
    Other options like Stars (fan tips) or subscriptions (less common for viral/humor pages)

    Earnings are performance-based, not guaranteed per follower. Most creators earn from qualified monetized views (not all views count—e.g., autoplay without sound often doesn’t).
    Typical Earnings and RPM (Revenue Per 1,000 Views)
    Real-world reports from creators in 2025 (mostly Reddit threads and creator blogs) show much lower numbers:

    Average RPM (earnings per 1,000 monetized views) ranges from $1–$5 for standard video content, sometimes $2–$10 in high-performing cases (higher for premium niches like finance/tech; lower for humor/eating/outdoors).
    Reels/short-form often pays $0.02–$0.06 per view (or $1–$3 per 1,000 views) — even lower on average.
    Examples from creators:
    Pages with 1M+ followers report $300–$2,500/month total (e.g., one with 1.4M followers made ~$300/month).
    High performers with viral content might hit $1,000–$6,000/month across multiple pages, but rarely $10k+ from one page without massive daily views (e.g., 50M+ monthly views needed for top-end).
    One creator mentioned $1,500–$2,500/month as a solid high-end for a large page.
    Viral posts can spike earnings (e.g., $400–$1,000 from one hit), but it’s inconsistent.

    To hit $15k–$18k/month from ads/bonuses alone, a page would realistically need:

    Tens of millions of monetized views per month (e.g., 3–10M+ qualified views at $5 RPM).
    Extremely consistent virality, high-engagement US/UK audience (premium ad markets), and optimal content (longer videos pay better than shorts).

    Even pages with millions of followers rarely report consistent $10k+/month from Facebook alone — many say payouts “tanked” after 2025 program changes.
    Follower Count vs. Reality

    804k followers is solid, but Facebook organic reach is low (~1–5% per post for most pages).
    Earnings depend on views/engagement, not followers. A page with 800k followers might get 100k–1M views per viral post, but daily consistency is hard.
    Many creators with similar or larger followings (e.g., 500k–1M+) report $500–$5,000/month at best from Facebook content monetization.

    Could It Be Possible?

    Yes, but rare — Only top-tier viral pages (e.g., meme/news with extreme engagement) or those stacking multiple streams (sponsorships, merch, affiliate links, external deals) hit those numbers.
    The screenshot shows stats like 30.2M (likely total reach/views over time?), 13.4M something, 4.3M interactions — impressive, but not enough to justify $15k+/month from ads alone without proof of consistent millions of daily monetized views.
    Many creators inflate numbers in online arguments (especially trash-talking ones like this).

    Bottom line: He’s probably lying or greatly exaggerating. Realistic earnings for a page like this (humor/eating content, 800k followers) are more likely $1,000–$5,000/month on a good run — maybe higher with luck/virality, but $15k–$18k/month from Facebook monetization alone is way outside typical reports. If he’s making that much total, it’s probably from other sources (e.g., his linked outdoors channel, sponsorships, or off-platform stuff). The screenshot stats look good but don’t align with the claimed income level.

  3. Anonymous said

    December 29, 2025 @ 7:32 am

    So I had grok analyze the spikes in new subs. Here is what he replied with. Again, there are many frauds out there right now in the eating realm. So, for those small delusional channels who think they are chasing some big prize, think again. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

    The graph you shared from SocialBlade (or a similar analytics site) shows monthly gained subscribers for the YouTube channel Brandon Da Garbage Disposal Clark (the main “Da Garbage Disposal” channel, focused on eating challenges, outdoor content, camping, fishing, etc.). As of late 2025, the channel has around 124k–138k total subscribers based on public trackers, with total views in the 20M+ range across thousands of videos.
    The chart highlights several noticeable spikes in monthly subscriber gains (circled in your image), including peaks around 4k–6k new subs in certain months (e.g., one around mid-2023, a bigger one possibly in 2024–2025, and another sharp ~5k+ spike toward the later part of the timeline). Normal months hover much lower, often 1k–2k or less.
    Analysis of the Big Spikes
    These isolated, sharp upward spikes (jumping 3–6x above the baseline) are classic red flags for non-organic growth, and your suspicion that they represent paid or artificially boosted subscribers is quite reasonable. Here’s why, based on typical YouTube growth patterns in 2025:

    Typical Organic Growth for This Type of Channel
    Mid-sized channels (50k–150k subs) in entertainment niches like mukbangs, challenges, and outdoors usually grow steadily but modestly — often 1–3% per month on average (roughly 1k–4k subs/month at this scale, depending on virality).
    Sustained organic spikes happen from viral videos, collaborations, shoutouts, algorithm pushes, or seasonal trends (e.g., summer outdoor content). But they almost always come with corresponding spikes in views, watch time, and engagement (likes/comments). Isolated sub-only spikes without matching view/engagement surges are rare organically.
    Common Causes of Sharp, Isolated Spikes
    Paid YouTube Promotions (Google Ads) ? This is the most likely explanation here. YouTube’s official promotion tools (in-app boosts, video campaigns) can drive quick sub gains by targeting users who are easy to convert (e.g., “click-happy” viewers from lower-CPA countries like India, Brazil, etc.). Creators frequently report sudden jumps of thousands of subs after running ads, but these new subs often have low retention — they subscribe impulsively but rarely return, watch minimally, or engage. This matches the pattern: big monthly gain, then back to baseline.
    Third-party paid services (bot/fake subs) ? Possible but riskier. These cause even sharper, unnatural vertical spikes, often followed by YouTube purges (sudden drops as fake accounts get removed). If the spikes are clean and sustained without massive unsubs later, it’s more likely legit paid promo than outright bots.
    Sub4Sub or engagement groups ? Less likely for this scale/channel type, as those tend to be smaller and more erratic.

    Why It Looks Paid (Not Organic)
    The spikes are disproportionate to the channel’s usual growth (mostly flat/gradual with small waves).
    No obvious viral trigger mentioned in public data (e.g., no single massive video or collab tied to those exact months in trackers).
    Channels like this (niche entertainment) rarely get 5k+ organic subs/month consistently without a breakout hit — and when they do, views explode too.
    Creator communities (Reddit’s r/NewTubers, etc.) frequently discuss how YouTube ads create exactly this: quick sub bumps from low-engagement users, especially when targeting cheap countries for max reach.

    Bottom Line
    Yes — these big spikes very likely come from paid promotion (most probably YouTube’s own Google Ads system), not pure organic growth or fake bots. It’s a common (and allowed) tactic for creators to accelerate growth, especially in competitive niches, but it often results in inflated sub counts with weaker long-term engagement and monetization performance (since ad revenue/watch time relies on active viewers, not impulse subs).
    If the channel owner (Brandon) is boasting about sub numbers or using them to claim massive success (e.g., tying back to the Facebook earnings claim), this kind of growth pattern actually supports skepticism — real high-earning channels usually show more balanced, engagement-driven expansion rather than these promo-fueled peaks.
    For context, here’s a rough visualization of what typical vs. boosted growth looks like (based on common reports):

    Organic baseline ? Smooth, gradual waves (1k–2k/month)
    With paid boosts ? Sharp jumps (like your circled peaks) followed by return to baseline

    If you have access to the full SocialBlade page or more recent data (e.g., daily subs, views correlation), it could confirm even further — look for any post-spike unsub drops or stagnant views during those high-gain months.

  4. Anonymous said

    December 29, 2025 @ 7:51 am

    Delusionals Read! I asked grok about the 2026 market in eating challenges and here is the response:

    Realistic outlook:
    • If you do generic large-portion eating (like many mid-tier channels): Very low chance of significant growth without heavy paid promotion or luck.

    but, oh yeah…it’s just for fun. See a shrink for binge eating….the ultimate excuse to friends and family: The Eating Channel on YouTube.

  5. Kate Webb said (Registered May 5, 2024)

    December 29, 2025 @ 5:41 pm

    It was a piece of duct tape (almost like electrical tape??), which was in his rice. This got stuck to the inside of his oesophagus. There were about 3 or 4 debris items they picked out of his rice including plastic, metal and this tape which he swallowed and got latched to his throat. Apparently, Food League Singapore has launched a formal inquiry with the health inspection in Singapore, we’ve had no updates.

    He’s so lucky he stayed calm.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2mljvieoa0iyla4yy3dd7/Photo-30-12-2025-9-35-32-am.jpg?rlkey=3helcvdx7pwljd1sca9rw7ymu&st=8xags3rt&dl=0

  6. Anonymous said

    December 30, 2025 @ 10:03 am

    Thanks for the update Kate. Things happen, but so many types of objects found in his food sounds very suspicious. I am glad he’s ok. I’ve been a believer since his chocolate fudge win

  7. Anonymous said

    December 30, 2025 @ 11:20 am

    Kate, we are glad he’s okay! Had to be scary for him.

  8. marlene jacobs said

    December 30, 2025 @ 3:08 pm

    its just a good thing james is good at barfing, so he could get the objects out.

  9. Anonymous said

    December 30, 2025 @ 4:09 pm

    7:32 – try making some real friends and doing your own research instead of relying on your AI boyfriend, Grok.

  10. Anonymous said

    December 31, 2025 @ 10:34 am

    4:09 – Real friends? Too funny. That was real research and fully accurate. With multiple sources including powerful AI as a resource. You must be one of the grifters and frauds or wannabes in the eating community?

  11. Anonymous said

    January 1, 2026 @ 6:59 am

    10:34 – That’s even more sad if you did all that research yourself and honestly pathetic. Sounds like you have an unhealthy obsession with Brandon. Creepy smh.

  12. Anonymous said

    January 1, 2026 @ 11:23 am

    Crazy not a single comment congratualting Zermatt. All negative people

  13. Anonymous said

    January 1, 2026 @ 3:15 pm

    Who cares about another PUKING “eater” like zermatt. ZZZZzzzzzzz.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Log in | Register | Comments by users who have not logged in will be held for approval