Fat Head

In this particular case; the deceitful agenda of the powerful lobbying especial interest groups behind the shadowy "fattification" of the US of A. A smoke and mirrors "epidemic" which they themselves manufacture ("The Man", obv); knowingly and willingly. The medium is in a form of rebuttal to the lame Super Size Me one; even with the same tone. Except infinitely better and more funny. It also serves as a teaching aid in explaining why regular diets don't work, and the intuitive truth about how our metabolism has evolved to eat meat; not vegetables. Despite what you have been misled to believe all your life. I can't believe this isn't rated higher; but it doesn't surprise me as much anylonger. The problem for many then is, that oftentimes it comes too hard and lengthy on it subject matter. But it's OK, since after all; it was made by a self proclaimed on-the-side comic (nothing wrong with that either) And I thought it succeeded wonderfully in making fun of the referenced people and institutions; again, it was really good and funny. If any; I found out that it didn't pwnd them hard enough. I also didn't mind the low budget; for it was nicely shot, edited, and very well put together; also it gave it real character. The animations were well done, funny and informative as well. Hence, the problem with sheeple is that when you tell them explicitly; then it's always your fault. They resist you and go all STFUN&WTF on you. People just don't like to be accountable for their actions; let alone hint at being merely responsible. Not to mention that people get offended for the most irrelevant and silliest things; because he badmouthed Mcnutguy(Spurlock), some minorities, the govermint; etc. Give me a break! Nothing nowhere near when an anti establishment person utters a word. Eg, a 9/11 conspiracy; which I'd at least understand their closed minded, backlashing, emotional response. There's no need to say conspiracy anyhow; because everybody should know by now that the evil corporate-govermint is responsible. This has been proved time and time again. Yet sheeple just don't want to accept that simple fact. Nevertheless; I urge you to think and found out for yourself, if that's not the case. Ie, ask yourself; what parts were not true about those statements? None obv; at least to me. Vegnuts arguments are exactly like animal rights ones; they are all emotions over reasons. Because otherwise they'd have no arg "point"; ie anything to stupidly complain about. Vegetarism is malnourishing, sickening and anti-natural; deal with it. So if you eat like a pig; better stated, what a pig does; then you'll obv become a pig. No surprises; a bad rating or review, or self righteous indignation; at least from my behalf. Just kudos for telling it like it is, on a job superbly done!

While I think "Fat Head" is a very flawed film, I do recommend you watch it. It has many good points to make and makes you think...too bad the film is so ugly to look at and uneven that you might not bother watching the movie to its conclusion. Watch it...even if it is really ugly and could have used some work.

When the film begins, the filmmaker (Tom Naughton) brings up some possible inconsistencies behind Morgan Spurlock's film "Super Size Me". I really wish Naughton hadn't piggybacked on Spurlock's film, however, as although I agreed that Spurlock wasn't particularly fair in how he conducted his 'experiment', focusing all this energy against Spurlock seemed to deflect from THE most important message in "Fat Head"--that many of our dietary assumptions are wrong! Various experts throughout the film made convincing arguments that animal fats are NOT bad and should make up much of our diet. And, interestingly, the US government food pyramid we all followed for so long (which recommended consumption of HUGE amounts of grains) actually have made us fatter and less fit. But, focusing so much on Spurlock was done, most likely, for marketing reasons. As a result, the film seemed a bit ill-focused.

Despite these complaints, my biggest ones are because the film looks very amateurish. The graphics look incredibly cheap and ugly--really, really, really ugly. So, while Naughton is making some good points, he's doing it with graphics which would embarrass most viewers. Plus, sometimes Naughton made wonderful jokes and observations--and other times, he missed the mark and having some outsiders help him polish the film would have really helped.

The bottom line is that Tom Naughton has a lot of talent and made some wonderful observations. But, he simply needs polish and better direction. So, if he could perhaps work WITH A TEAM, the results would look so much better instead of looking more like a YouTube post than a movie. There's a lot to it....and try to look past its deficits.

Let's be honest-- at 500 pages most of us aren't going to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories." This film serves as a much easier introduction to the theories and realities about why we get fat, what causes coronary heart disease and diabetes, and what we can do to reverse those conditions. In an easy-to-understand and humorous way, the film explains why the "obvious" reasons we are fat (access to fast food, fat in the diet, etc) are often the wrong answers. If you are trying to lose weight, have heart disease or type-2 diabetes, or just want to live a healthier lifestyle, grab a friend and sit down to watch this film.

"Supersize Me" was an entertaining film about the guy who decided to eat only McDonald's for a month and see what happens. But in "Fat Head" this other guy complains the earlier film doesn't seem real, and wants to prove you can eat fast food and not only stay the same weight but even lose some. There is some good discussion about what actually makes you gain weight and what causes it. I recommend to watch it to get some new perspective on things.

The technical side of the film looks a bit rushed, like a Youtube video. But since I actually watched it from Youtube it didn't matter that much.

An interesting documentary. Check it out.

I thought this documentary was all-in-all OK. I think the movie accomplished it's goal in a narrow-minded sense, which was to say that ultimately, consumers drive the market and it is up to the individual to make the correct decisions on what they are putting in their bodies. It is not the responsibility of the government to make our food choices for us. The other message that I thought was effectively conveyed was that having an occasional cheeseburger is not going to, in itself, give you a heart attack. However, depriving yourself from your biological urges can be stressful and can cause a backlash of overeating down the road.

I also appreciated the point that the movie made that simple sugars and refined carbohydrates with high glycemic indices such as high-fructose corn syrup are really the major dietary issue that our country should be focused on. Type II diabetes should be the target of our concern, and not animal fats (as far as dietary implications are concerned). Also, the sedentary lifestyle that the average American lives is a huge part of the problem, probably more so than what we are eating. Try telling Chad Ochocinco that the McDonald's that he eats before every game is going to make him fat or unhealthy.

On the negative side, I was off-put by the unsophisticated jabs that the movie kept taking at Spurlock and also the Vegetarian movement. I thought the movie did a poor and distasteful job of respectfully criticizing its opponents. The campy cartoons and name-calling really took away from the effectiveness of the film, and these tactics can quickly turn off an undecided audience, like me.

Also, the movie focused only on dietary/health issues. I thought the movie neglected the important issues of the environmental impacts of eating so much animal meat, the economic impacts, and the treatment of workers and animals.

The environmental argument: When humans eat animals, they are only utilizing 1% of the original energy in the ecosystem. When eating fruits/vegetables, we are using 10 x the energy from the environment. The rest is lost as heat/metabolic energy. Therefore, vegetarian diets are more efficient and sustainable for a large population than animal diets. The corporations also tend to be horrifically bad at keeping up to environmental and safety code, and usually find that it is more profitable to pay the fines and continue poor environmental/health safety practices, rather than correct the behaviors.

The economics argument: Most major corporations are milking the profits out of local economies and not paying it back to the communities or workers. Most employees of these companies can not live off of their wages and are not provided with decent benefits. In addition, many of these companies receive government subsidies for their ingredients and their employee benefits, which comes out of the taxpayer's paycheck. So there is a hidden expense to these companies and their affiliates that you are paying out of each pay check.

The animal ethics argument: The conditions that the animals live in are ridiculously poor. Most low-quality meat comes from just a few mega-slaughterhouses in the country, which is run upon the principle of "the more meat the better". The animal meat that you are eating is most likely from terribly unhealthy and mistreated animals (or in some cases genetically engineered), which hardly seems natural or healthy.

In the end, I thought the movie made some interesting points and deserves a watch if you are interested in nutrition, but still needs to be taken with a grain of salt (harharhar). Some of the points were good, but the movie was overall narrow in scope and a bit cheesy.