lewis_pritchard

I'll preface this by saying that I am brand loyal to Asics; their shoes got me through my first marathon 5 years ago and since then I've only purchased Asics clothing. The fact that this documentary was produced by Asics was the main reason I watched it so I was prepared for a glorified advert, which is not my issue with the film.

Mind Games sets out to show the correlation between exercise and mental ability which is already a clearly established fact evidenced by countless scientific journals. Filming it for an audience could be a more entertaining and accessible format, but the point is lost because we barely see any improvement in our 4 competitors. One competitor wasn't even able to compete at the end because they contracted Covid-19 making their entire section feel pointless, why not just edit this out?

In the epilogue they show statistics suggesting mental capacity has increased, probably since they couldn't show it in the competitions, but this is also questionable because the results are self reported. The improvement is likely a placebo effect since exercise is great for mental health. If they were able to test mental ability beforehand why couldn't they repeat the test after the 4 months of exercise? And if it is an experiment, 4 people is too small a sample size, and what were the control variables?

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. All of the competitors were really likable people and it was interesting to see their fields of expertise. It's nice to see people exercising on TV who aren't Olympic standards which can be motivational for new comers. Lastly, the film is well produced and has a positive message, people should get more exercise because you will feel better.

What we have here is one of the most honest depictions of a culture I've seen in an American film. The montages of the streets of Harlem with the voice over feels like a poetic travelogue of a place and time you don't want to visit. This film also feels far ahead of its time, showing stuff you wouldn't see in Hollywood for at least another decade. I can see how this movie could have inspired the early features of Ralph Bakshi with its style and broad focus on urban characters from NYC.

Unfortunately this film is pretty obscure which means that tracking down a decent copy is hard, but it is possible to find a very grainy copy on YouTube.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on animal nutrition but I have to point out that there are several inaccuracies in this film that prevent me from recommending it.

First of all, dogs are omnivorous, it is fine for them to consume a small portion of their carbohydrates from plant material. The film compares them to wolves which are carnivores, but neglects to mention that a dogs digestive system has evolved in the thousands of years since dogs were first domesticated.

The experts they have are an intergrated vet (holistic medicine), a rehabilitation expert who specialises in falconry, and a lawyer. These aren't the best candidates, why couldn't they interview a standard small animal vet who would ideally be able to offer the best advice?

What it comes down to is the film suggests you feed a raw food diet, which is good advise for young pets. If you feed them raw food at a young age they can digest it easily but an adult dog or cat cannot simply switch from dry to raw. It is a slow process of substituting one food for the other to prevent problems such as diarrhoea or constipation. Not to mention that most people would prefer to feed raw but the cost is so much more than dry food that the consumers are kind of limited for choice.