Fat Head

I felt compelled to write a review after seeing several poorly constructed ones here. Mine may not be a work of art but it's honest and I've been motivated to look into food, nutrition and health to a higher degree based on some recent experience.

My father died this July at 76. He didn't smoke or drink. He did have a strong penchant for juices, pastries and breads/cereal. He had become type II diabetic some years back. He was slightly overweight but from the outside you couldn't imagine he had 80/80/90% blockages in his 3 main coronary arteries. It was a surprise to me when he had a heart attack following knee replacement surgery (3/10) and by angiogram we discovered just how bad his health was. I didn't realize how diabetes and heart disease are closely linked. He eventually died from complications associated with diabetes/coronary heart disease and possibly depression. It all happened pretty suddenly, but the underlying conditions had been developing for years. If I knew what my sister (an MD) knew I would have seen the signs earlier.

"Fat Head" was recently introduced to me and I was struck by the incisive quality of Naughton's investigation. "Super Size Me" seemed very damning of fast food and those that were "stupid and lazy enough" to eat it. But Spurlock's representative's not releasing his food logs is very suspicious. That's where Fat Head comes in. Sure, it was cheesy in places but that's the point. Don't let the graphics and quips fool you - this really is a thoughtful, important movie that at the very least would invite viewers to dig deeper into the science of nutrition. The big take-away for me was to read more and I picked up one of the books mentioned in the movie "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. The history of how nutritional information has been lost/suppressed/perverted and ignored is striking. Yes, follow the money. Naughton doesn't strike me as a gold digger, nor a corporate patsy. Before making up your mind on any reviews (including mine), I encourage you to watch this and then dig deeper. I've been listening to my body for years when it told me a vegan/vegetarian diet just doesn't feel right. Now, via Fat Head and lots of additional research (GCBC), I'm starting to understand why. Our ancestors really did know what was going on. We'd be wise to consider that 'modern' medicine is only as good as the integrity to do real science when it comes to human health and not ignore evidence that doesn't suit our preconceived notions (as Ancel Keys famously did in being father of the incorrect Lipid Hypothesis).

This is one of the most IMPORTANT movies I've ever seen. That's why I'm giving it 9 stars.

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.

Of course not - that would be Fight Club. But in spite of its low budget and cornball humor, "Fat Head" is a movie that could make a difference. Plus, it's funny. My teenage daughter and I were laughing all the way through.

I get the impression that making Fat Head as a reply to the "Super Size Me" crowd was decided upon as a way to set the stage for the actual information Naughton is trying to impart. That being said, I have to disagree with the reviewers who say that S.S.M. isn't science, and Fat Head isn't a rebuttal; In S.S.M., Spurlock comes up with his hypothesis (eating nothing but fast food is bad for you), devises a test, follows specific test procedures, and publishes his results and findings. Naughton looked at his test procedures, results, and findings, and found specific faults and inconsistencies, which Fat Head addresses. Sounds like what they taught me in high school science class!

More importantly, Fat Head brings out some REALLY important information for the people who are trying to be healthy and failing. I've been trying to get people to read Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (frequently referenced in Fat Head), which is of critical importance to our nation's health, but is...a bit dry. The fact that a lot of people HAVE read it is a tribute to its impact. Naughton takes that information and puts it in a nice, tasty, biodegradable paper wrapper and serves it up in a clown suit. Just the way we like it.

I can't say that I like that our society needs information packaged this way, but "edutainment" is the most effective way to disseminate information. Fat Head is well-researched, well-documented, funny, and imparts a critical message. Edutainment at its best.

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 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.