IMDb RATING
7.0/10
2.1K
YOUR RATING
A comedian replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy ea... Read allA comedian replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy eating is wrong.A comedian replies to the "Super Size Me" crowd by losing weight on a fast-food diet while demonstrating that almost everything you think you know about the obesity "epidemic" and healthy eating is wrong.
Sally Fallon Morell
- Self - President, Weston A. Price Foundation
- (as Sally Fallon)
Mary Enig
- Self - Biochemist
- (as Mary Enig PhD)
Michael R. Eades
- Self
- (as Michael R. Eades M.D.)
Mary Dan Eades
- Self
- (as Mary Dan Eades M.D.)
Al Sears
- Self - Director, Wellness Research Foundation
- (as Al Sears M.D.)
Eric Oliver
- Self - University of Chicago
- (as Eric Oliver PhD)
Michael Jacobson
- Self
- (archive footage)
George McGovern
- Self
- (archive footage)
Robert Olson
- Self
- (archive footage)
Margo Wootan
- Self
- (archive footage)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I had a lot of questions and problems with the "science" of Super Size Me and evidently, Tom Naughton did, too. By refusing to accept the junk science about junk food, Naughton effectively and entertainingly digs up the skinny on fat and how folks get that way.
I had a lot of similar dieting experiences as the ones he relates to in the film, and my own research discovered a lot of what is revealed in Fat Head (the cooked data behind the Lipid Theory, the methodological flaws in the CDC Obesity report, etc.). But whereas I'm a lazy bastard who was content to learn that no, my body's NOT broken (but rather the Expert Ideas on how it should work are), Naughton went the extra mile and got health professionals and scientists to state on the record just why everything you think you know about fat and nutrition is wrong.
He never strays into the waters of conspiracy theory but hints at what COULD be the reason so many health professionals pushed a flawed agenda for so long.
As another user noted, the production values are not ILM-standard. So what? This film is all about the information and the manner in which it's presented is less important than what it's presenting. I suggest if you're really pressed for high quality funny animation, you throw on a Bakshi DVD and watch that. If you want animation that clearly and concisely conveys information, then the animation in Fat Head will do ya just fine.
I'm sure a lot of folks will NOT be happy with the info in this film. My question is, are they angry because it's wrong and harmful (and the evidence suggests it's not) or because it dares question the tribal notions of Fat and Sugar BAD!? I suspect option number two and bruised egos will do more to stir up their wrath than any problems with the information in Fat Head.
Well, that's their problem. Let 'em wallow in the horrors of Crap Veganism while the rest of us eat what nature programmed us to eat. I'm an omnivore and damned proud of it! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm up a for a nice brisk walk to KFC for a three-piece meal of Original Recipe...
I had a lot of similar dieting experiences as the ones he relates to in the film, and my own research discovered a lot of what is revealed in Fat Head (the cooked data behind the Lipid Theory, the methodological flaws in the CDC Obesity report, etc.). But whereas I'm a lazy bastard who was content to learn that no, my body's NOT broken (but rather the Expert Ideas on how it should work are), Naughton went the extra mile and got health professionals and scientists to state on the record just why everything you think you know about fat and nutrition is wrong.
He never strays into the waters of conspiracy theory but hints at what COULD be the reason so many health professionals pushed a flawed agenda for so long.
As another user noted, the production values are not ILM-standard. So what? This film is all about the information and the manner in which it's presented is less important than what it's presenting. I suggest if you're really pressed for high quality funny animation, you throw on a Bakshi DVD and watch that. If you want animation that clearly and concisely conveys information, then the animation in Fat Head will do ya just fine.
I'm sure a lot of folks will NOT be happy with the info in this film. My question is, are they angry because it's wrong and harmful (and the evidence suggests it's not) or because it dares question the tribal notions of Fat and Sugar BAD!? I suspect option number two and bruised egos will do more to stir up their wrath than any problems with the information in Fat Head.
Well, that's their problem. Let 'em wallow in the horrors of Crap Veganism while the rest of us eat what nature programmed us to eat. I'm an omnivore and damned proud of it! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm up a for a nice brisk walk to KFC for a three-piece meal of Original Recipe...
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
As a Fortean (Google that if you're not sure), and a follower of a high fat, low carb diet (Google The Primal Blueprint) I appreciate his efforts in debunking the Conventional Wisdom and looking at the real results of scientific studies, and deriding the "experts" who had thrown out data that doesn't jibe with their theories. I mean, he eats like me. Double cheeseburger and diet soda. Except I don't eat the bun.
I would object to his rebuttal against Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" He derides Spurlock for being, I suppose, elitist. He claims that Spurlock thinks poor people are "stupid" because they don't know any better to avoid eating fast food if they are overweight. Spurlock never claimed poor people are stupid, but I am sure he would admit that they are low information. Just like many Americans. That doesn't make them stupid, that makes them deprived of information due to the lousy job done by our public education system and corporate driven media, but that's an argument for another day.
In regard to Spulock's point about availability of food options among the poor, I have news for you, guy. If you have never been in a poverty stricken area, sometimes the only food options are McDonald's. Not even a supermarket. Maybe some beef jerky and Doritos from the liquor store, where the shop owner has to jack up his prices to obscene levels because he's been held up at gunpoint multiple times and his insurance is through the roof. But it's either that, McDonald's, starvation, or drive 15 miles to an area with decent choices. All not the best options.
Overall, people need to hear most of this movie, but I did not appreciate his ragging on Spurlock.
As far as "following the money," as this movie suggests, with the fast food industry versus the weight loss industry, one getting fat off getting people fat, and the other getting fat off getting people skinny (or trying to and failing), who can the average person possibly root for in that competition?
I would object to his rebuttal against Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" He derides Spurlock for being, I suppose, elitist. He claims that Spurlock thinks poor people are "stupid" because they don't know any better to avoid eating fast food if they are overweight. Spurlock never claimed poor people are stupid, but I am sure he would admit that they are low information. Just like many Americans. That doesn't make them stupid, that makes them deprived of information due to the lousy job done by our public education system and corporate driven media, but that's an argument for another day.
In regard to Spulock's point about availability of food options among the poor, I have news for you, guy. If you have never been in a poverty stricken area, sometimes the only food options are McDonald's. Not even a supermarket. Maybe some beef jerky and Doritos from the liquor store, where the shop owner has to jack up his prices to obscene levels because he's been held up at gunpoint multiple times and his insurance is through the roof. But it's either that, McDonald's, starvation, or drive 15 miles to an area with decent choices. All not the best options.
Overall, people need to hear most of this movie, but I did not appreciate his ragging on Spurlock.
As far as "following the money," as this movie suggests, with the fast food industry versus the weight loss industry, one getting fat off getting people fat, and the other getting fat off getting people skinny (or trying to and failing), who can the average person possibly root for in that competition?
Did you know
- Crazy creditsNo, this production wasn't funded or approved by McDonald's.
It was entirely self-financed.
- ConnectionsReferences Super Size Me (2004)
- SoundtracksSugar
Performed by Tom Monahan
Written by Tom Monahan
Produced by Martin Blasick
Seance Master Music (BMI)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $150,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 44m(104 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content