User Reviews

When I saw Super Size Me a couple years ago, I thought it was hilarious, even though I didn't totally buy its anti-McDonalds agenda. Morgan Spurlock pigged out at McDonalds, 3 meals-a-day for 30 days, resulting in a weight gain of 25 pounds and an overall decline in his mental and physical health. This hardly comes as a surprise - I suspect he would have had similar results no matter what restaurant he had chosen to gorge himself in. Gluttony is bad, m'kay? .

Fat Head is a counterargument that's interesting but not quite as entertaining. In this movie, Tom Naughton eats fast food for 28 days and actually loses 12 pounds and lowers his cholesterol. This isn't surprising, either, as he follows a disciplined, moderate-carb approach instead of all-you-can-eat. The fairly obvious conclusion is that what matters isn't where you eat, but the choices you make after you've walked in the door.

Initially, Fat Head does some point-by-point rebuttals of Spurlock's documentary, but then it morphs into a general discussion of what exactly constitutes an unhealthy diet. Yep, it's the perennial low-fat vs. low-carb argument, with Naughton and the experts he interviews coming down solidly in the low-carb camp. There are zealots on both sides of that issue, so I imagine many will give this movie a 1-star or 10-star rating automatically on ideological grounds alone. For the rest of us, it's a good, sometimes funny introduction to low-carb philosophy.

A great movie that proves that we should all be skeptical of what 'experts' tell us and especially skeptical of what documentary filmmakers tell us. I never saw Super Size Me, but I know all too well what its conclusions were. Our media gobbled up SSM as gospel now its conclusions are part of our "conventional wisdom".

This movie does a great job of reminding us to use our brains and think for ourselves. These facts alone (revealed in Fat Head) should make you question Spurlock's conclusions: - To this day Spurlock still refuses to disclose his food diary - The movie was backed by a lawyer who's suing McDonald's for billions - Spurlock's numbers of 5,000 calories a day don't add up

The movie may be a little corny and a little heavy-handed in its approach, but as believer in personal responsibility I feel it hits the mark.

This movie really got under my skin. The narrator is a nasal little man who sets up straw men before he blatantly topples them with public interviews. The first 1/3 of the movie takes a "talking down to the viewer" approach in my opinion, and the guy spends way to much time heaping vitriol on Morgan Spurlock and the government. I stopped watching it twice, but picked it up days later and am glad I finished it.

If you can bear the low budget filmmaking, the irritating narrator, and the assault of massive political bias, and trombone sounds every time they show the white house, there is some value in this film. Eventually the film goes from Spurlock hatefest to explaining the obesity epidemic in a way most people probably aren't familiar with. If this movie were better made with a less snarky and biased narrator, it would be a strong 9 IMHO.

The film explains that fat is good, cholesterol isn't the devil we have been told, carb overload is the devil, and the the government has actively championed a diet that is literally killing us. I have read this information before scattered about the web, but the film does a good job of making it accessible in between pot shots at the government, researchers, and anyone who isn't a fan of Fox News.

In conclusion, I wouldn't miss this film for the information you get in the last 1/2 or 2/3, but the guy did everything in his power to make it hard to watch if you have a brain.

He mocks CSPI and vegetarians, but fails to once actually show the health effects associated with fast food. He argues that eating low calories will make you lose weight, which is true. Does lowering calories make you healthy? Of course not. The experts he brings on to the film, well, aren't well known experts. He is not showing leading researchers or leading research. Tries to say consumerism doesn't influence our eating habits or those of our kids, while it is proved that ads DO influence our choices. Does anyone really believe that companies would air commercials if they weren't effective?! He brings up one good point, not everyone eating fast food is ignorant to what they are eating. People will eat fast food regardless. Then he tries to explain BMI as only height and weight. He forgets that the height/weight measurement is only to give a guess. It does NOT give the true BMI of a person, which should be stated instead of misrepresented.

Mr. Naughton was not justifying his "obesety" with this film, nor is he on a crusade to inspire people to eat nothing but fast food from McDonald's. He was merely pointing out the fallacies inherent with the current standards of health and fitness in the United States as well as addressing the doom and gloom in regard to healthy eating. Essentially it came down to this; Eating out isn't the end of the world, Government regulation isn't the answer, and whichever path you choose to healthy living, just be satisfied with your choices and accept the consequences of your actions.

In response to the review from dkinem regarding nutrition in human evolution: http://cast.uark.edu /local /icaes /conferences /wburg /posters /sboydeaton /eaton.htm (Delete space to follow the link)

I genuinely think that most doctors have their patient's health in mind, but the best of intentions don't always equal what's best for people.

Consider the fact that Veterinarians seem to be consistently at odds with holistic nutritionists. Veterinarians are told all throughout their training that Science Diet is an acceptable brand to feed your dog. However, that particular brand is nothing but corn meal and grain with beef flavoring; ingredients which Dogs are unable to digest and ingredients which have a deeply negative impact on the the overall health of the animal. Meanwhile holistic nutritionists consider canine evolution when suggesting dog food, which, from my experience has had a profoundly positive impact on the quality of my dog's health.

It's not the fault of the veterinarians that they are unaware of the negative impact of science diet, as is it not the fault of doctors that they may not have considered taking human dietary evolution into account when they write guidelines on what is best for us. It just seems that while they haven't necessarily been fed false information, they haven't been properly conditioned to be as skeptical as they could be in regard to what constitutes a healthy diet.

Have you ever had a conversation with the type of person who refuses to stray from a rigid belief? Tom Naughton's film "Fat Head" felt like that to me. About 1/3rd of the way into this movie, I had to wonder if the film was paid for by the fast food lobby. The writer/director/star Tom Naughton is billed as a comedian yet there was no laughs here. Frankly, it felt like a one-side argument designed to further confuse frustrated dieters and to push a weak agenda. The dripping sarcasm, straw man arguments and non-stop condescending tone quickly made me want to turn off my TV, but I continued to watch just to see if it would get better. It didn't.

There are so many problems with this film and Tom Naughton's arguments that it could not fit in a review. But, I'll go through a few of the most irritating points.

NOBODY'S FORCING YOU TO EAT FAST FOOD: The first issue for me was the claim at the very beginning of this film that the fast food industry does not force anyone to eat their food. They may not hold you down and force feed you McD's, but what they have done in past decades is to crowd out mom & pop restaurants with a combination of aggressive marketing, cheap deals, factory food practices; all designed to push out local competitors. Another fast food chain technique is to locate themselves in areas which have no other options. (i.e. airports, highways, cafeterias, food courts) 25 years ago, a trip across Ontario meant reasonably healthy meals (if one desired) at truck stops. Today you cannot find anything but fast food places. It's a problem if you travel as part of your living which I did for many years. Trying to stay healthy on McD's, Wendy's and Subway is a real problem. You may not get fat if you count your calories, but you will feel horrible if this is all that you can get.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS: This movie spent far too much time trying to discredit Super Size Me instead of addressing the issues which led to the making of that film. I have seen Super Size Me, but I'm really not interested in defending Spurlock's movie. The core point is still that the fast food industry has worked tirelessly to market food which calorie for calorie does not contain enough nutrition, and at worst can cause obesity in individuals who find the low cost and lack of affordable options irresistible.

MARKETING TO KIDS: Naughton complains that McD's playland is unfairly criticized. They provide air conditioned / heated playgrounds in some communities that have not been provided by several levels of government. He does not touch on the other incentives that fast food chains use to lure children through their doors. In some countries, marketing to kids is illegal - and for good reason. Children are not good decision makers. Naughton turns the camera on a small child in the playland area who isn't interested in eating as if to say "see, these kids are only interested in playing, not eating" but neglects to mention just how awful this fatty, starchy, salty garbage food is for growing bodies. He also rails against organizations which have targeted McD's and other fast food chains to get them to make nutritional information more accessible as if such initiatives are nanny state nonsense. He forgets to mention that McD's has changed to include a few healthier choices as a result of these initiatives. Nobody is saying never eat at McDonald's, they have always been warning people that the claims of it being healthy for kids (yes, they used to say such things) is patently false. Instead of discussing initiatives that have resulted in better information for consumers, he attacks the consumer groups as vegetarian organizations intent on spoiling all our fun.

If you go back to Morgan Spurlock's original premise, it was that the portions are intentionally priced to make gluttony affordable. And the more you eat of that type of food, the more you crave it which is in line with McD's business model. Super Size Me did not intend (IMHO) to show that moderate eating would lead to weight gain. The goal was to show that McD's and other fast food chains have a vested interest in getting you to eat their food, despite the negative nutritional effects, as often and as much as we can.

POSITIVE CHANGES AFTER SUPER SIZE ME: There was an immediate shift for the better after Super Size me came out. McD's began to offer a variety of salads, apple slices, juice or milk instead of high fructose syrup sodas. Nutritional info became easier to get. McD's even began a campaign to show how their food is made. It's not all pretty but at least we know now.

Activists have also exposed factory farming, the mistreatment of animals destined for McD's, the sludge they use in McNuggets and other odd practices which were once a trade secret hidden from customers. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would take issue with asking any organization to show us how our food is made, and what's in it. It should be our right. These are positive changes but I believe we can do better without ruining the burger experience for those who want it.

Let's face it - shining a light on the inadequacies of these organizations and shaming them into doing better isn't bad. It's beneficial to all of us.

I give Fat Head 1 star for being nothing more than corporate propaganda and misinformation. If you want to shed a few pounds, you should avoid this film and fast food in general if not for the calories and fat, but for the simple fact that it lacks good nutrition.

If you're the type of person that cares at all about what you're eating, I think it's important that you see this documentary. With that being said, you do have to suffer through some dry humor and shoddy 'animation' if you could call it that.

Basically, the premise of this documentary is to show that Morgan Spurlock's 'Super Size Me' is not only wrong in it's direction, but also in it's basis for conclusion. However, Tom Naughton takes this film much further than that. He goes on to show how the CDC has trumped up the numbers regarding the 'obesity pandemic' in the US, and how easily some of our preconceived notions about nutrition are wrong... and why. Those 3 things set the tone, the rest is playful banter with folks in and around restaurants and fast food joints. Sometimes it gets a bit redundant, regardless, the facts presented overwhelm this films shortcomings.

As a person who has struggled with being overweight off and on for 2/3 of my life, this film has taught me to challenge certain things about nutrition we've all been taught from childhood on.

Not all parents can manage keeping themselves on a healthy diet with daily exercise. What they bring to the table won't create a healthy life style for them or their children especially if they get used to it, then food like McDonald's is no longer a treat. Tom Naughton from Fat Head has tried low fat diets such as Pritikin until proved unhealthy when founder Nathan Pritikin died from Leukemia as a result. Naughton claims that low fat diets are depressing, since most of the brain is composed of fat, saturated fats are necessary to make the brain happy. But Naughton speaks from personal experience. Tom is also a father his film isn't focused on childhood obesity, but as a parent should Naughton be concerned by the epidemic. While many parents are suing McDonald's over childhood obesity, Naughton support McDonald's side instead by attacking Super-Size Me.

Naughton enjoys fast-food, consider obese by the government's BMI standards, but exercises every day; so he says. Based off the current McDonald's nutrition facts, Tom Naughton claims that Morgan Spurlock calorie count from Super-Size Me made years before this movie was wrong. So without seeing the Spurlock's official food log, Naught tries to prove that fast food doesn't make you gain weight with exercise by going on an all fast food diet despite his doctor's advice, but doesn't clarify if his diet will be a month long like Spurlock's. Tom Naughton is just a computer programmer, part time comedian, who has only made this documentary, and most importantly Naughton is a parent. Whereas award winning documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock has made over fifty documentaries and was not a parent at time of his movie; I know Naughton's looking for a challenge, but when he said if Spurlock stayed on the McDonald's diet he would have lost the weight from Super-Size Me faster than the four months he was on a vegan diet, Spurlock overshadowed him. If McDonald's is the reason Spurlock gained that weight in the first place, why would more McDonald's be the solution? Above all Tom Naughton is in support of something that does cause obesity on daily basis, but Naughton is no Ronald McDonald restaurant mascot, he's a parent who brings the food straight to the table. Instead of making this film, Naughton should've focused his "baloney" on his own kids to see where that takes him.

I like Morgan Spurlock and I liked Super Size Me. I wasn't expecting to like Fat Head. I certainly didn't expect to agree with it.

Tom Naughton won me over. He makes a lot of good points. But first, let me say that there is no point in complaining about Tom's comedic style. Morgan has plenty of that as well. Let's judge both directors on their facts.

Fat Head brings up important points about how Super Size Me presented information (or neglected to do so). FH also rips the government, and rightly so.

Got me researching Glycemic Index/Load, backing up what I was taught as a child (Adelle Davis household).

Well done, Tom. A worthy effort.

Fat Head is the work of an unfunny failed comedian who wastes huge time with a pointless and often incoherent attack on Morgan Spurlock, before morphing into an anti-government right-wing rant. Along the way you will learn that the poor are more inclined toward obesity because non-whites supposedly are genetically predisposed toward "thicker" bodies, and that court-mandated busing to desegregate schools has made kids fatter. We are presented with a group of experts including low carb diet gurus and a writer for a libertarian magazine, but no doctors or scientists who defend the science backing the conventional wisdom about the effects of saturated fats on heart disease and body weight to give us an opposing perspective. We get Naughton's tedious and juvenile attempts to be funny, like asking people on the street if they ever had a heart attack after eating fettuccine alfredo.

I generally agree with Naughton that the "conventional wisdom" (that saturated fats elevates cholesterol, and that elevated cholesterol leads to heart disease) is now in substantial question. So it would be wonderful if a filmmaker with some personal scientific expertise and no pre-existing agenda either way would undertake an objective and thorough critical examination of the validity of the existing science on either side of the argument. Sadly, nothing of the sort happens in the libertarian ego trip called Fat Head.